Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Community Care

Mr. Mark Robinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the progress of the community care reforms in Somerset; and if she will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): Our new community care arrangements came into operation in all parts of the country on 1 April. It is now for local health and social services authorities to make full use of the enormous opportunities that those arrangements present. Our monitoring showed that authorities in Somerset were well prepared to take advantage of those opportunities for the benefit of both users and carers.

Mr. Robinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that Somerset was one of the best prepared counties in its plans for implementation of the community care programme? Would he also agree that that is a good reason to re-elect the Conservative-controlled authority on Thursday?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has put his finger right on the point. As we would expect, the excellent Conservative-controlled Somerset county council is taking its new and substantial responsibilities extremely seriously. Only by re-electing that Conservative council can we hope to preserve user choice, continue to raise standards and, above all, get the best value for money out of the enormous increase in resources that the Government have given Somerset—a 22 per cent. real increase over the past three years in the personal social services standard spending assessment and, on top of that, a special grant of £5·8 million for comunity care.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that, far from benefiting from care in the community, the shire counties are already discovering very directly that there are real problems? Is he also aware that some private firms are charging £25 a head for information about private homes? Is that what he means when he speaks about endeavouring to improve patient care?

Mr. Yeo: I am certainly aware that some councils, such as the Labour-controlled Derbyshire county council, are failing to co-operate with the independent sector, refusing to consult with independent providers of community care because of their dogmatic insistence that these services can be delivered only by a public sector monopoly. The Government will not tolerate that from shire counties or anywhere else, and Labour-controlled councils that are continuing to cling to out-of date dogma must heed this warning now.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment she has made of the progress of the community care reforms in Kent; and if she will make a statement.

Mr. Yeo: As I said earlier, our new community care arrangements came into force on 1 April in all parts of the country. They present substantial new opportunities for local health and social services authorities. Our monitoring of preparations in Kent showed that Kent


county council was one of the best prepared of all authorities to take full advantage of those opportunities for the benefit of users and carers.

Mr. Arnold: Is my hon. Friend aware that in Kent care managers have been in place for three years and that Conservative-controlled Kent county council has developed an excellent database in co-ordination with the general practitioners to ensure that individual packages for the people who need care are properly in place? Is this not an example of what Conservative-controlled Kent county council has done, and should not that example be followed throughout the country?

Mr. Yeo: I am glad to say that my hon. Friend has also put his finger right on the point. I gladly join him in paying tribute to the superb policies of Conservative-controlled Kent county council under its excellent chairman of social services and her fine team of supporting officers.
My hon. Friend mentions one of the many fields in which Kent county council is leading the way. There is one more—that council's co-operation with the independent sector. Kent county council is funding Age Concern to take over the running of many of its elderly persons' day centres. Such co-operation between Kent county council and the voluntary sector clearly gives the lie to Opposition assertions that the Government's insistence that the bulk of the special transitional grant must be spent buying services from the independent sector—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I would be obliged if the Minister would address the Chair. Not only can I not hear him but his remarks cannot be heard publicly when he turns in that way.

Mr. Yeo: I apologise, Madam Speaker.
Let me conclude by saying that that co-operation between the voluntary sector in Kent and the county council gives the lie to Opposition claims that the Government's insistence that the bulk of the special grant must be spent purchasing services from the independent sector perpetuates the residential model. It clearly does not.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Bearing in mind the fact that, under the Government's bizarre system for distributing community care funding, Kent receives money that should have gone to other areas, notably the London area, because the funding is sent where people have gone to in the past rather than where they come from, does the Minister feel that Kent will be in a position to improve its performance in providing home care, given that, according to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy league table, it is 28 out of 32 in terms of county councils, with Labour Derbyshire county council coming top?.
Does it not say something about the financial crisis facing local authorities in the implementation of the community care changes that Kent, with all its financial advantages, has to make savings of around £2 million in the current financial year?

Mr. Yeo: So far from making savings in the current financial year, apart from a proper insistence on efficiency, Kent was recognised, even by The Guardian on 30 March, as one of the councils that were substantially increasing expenditure on personal social services—as one would

expect, because Kent received an increase of 7 per cent. this year in its personal social services standard spending assessment.
The hon. Gentleman speaks of a bizarre distribution method. We are recognising need by our distribution formula. That is the purpose of the policy—to allow authorities to respond to needs. That is why the inner-London boroughs receive almost three times the money per head of population that the shire counties receive.

Mr. Wolfson: While I welcome my hon. Friend's positive comments about Kent, may I ask him to keep a particularly close eye, as the policy develops, on two sectors? The first is the development of care for the mentally ill, and the second is the services being offered by rehabilitation centres for alcoholics and drug offenders, which have been used to drawing clients from all over the country but which, under the new system, may find that more difficult?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has already mentioned to me privately his concern with facilities for the mentally ill. I look forward to visiting his constituency soon to open a new resource provided by the independent sector in the shape of MIND. As to the provision of services for drug and alcohol abusers, my hon. Friend will be aware that we have set up special monitoring arrangements to examine closely the effects of our new policies during the first three months on the providers of those services and the access that those who need them should continue to have.
A number of county councils, including Conservative-controlled Hampshire and Surrey, have set up ring-fenced allocations from within their special transitional grant to ensure that specialist services for alcoholics and drug abusers continue to be fully utilised. In the case of Hampshire, I know that the sum that has been allocated is greater than the sum that would have been available had we gone ahead with the original intention to ring-fence money at the national level.

Nurse Training

Mrs. Jane Kennedy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health if she will make it her policy to introduce a guarantee of employment for all nurses satisfactorily completing their nurse training in 1993.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): Regional health authorities and local employers manage the recruitment of qualified nurses and are already seeking ways to provide each newly qualified nurse and midwife with at least a period of employment.

Mrs. Kennedy: Does the Secretary of State accept that it costs at least £36,000 a year for every student nurse in training for three years, and that it is a monumental waste of resources to have such nurses leave the profession either to find other work or to join the dole queue? Will she accept two simple proposals that might help nurses to find work—the introduction of careers counselling for student nurses and the development of a national database for nursing vacancies?

Mrs. Bottomley: I accept the hon. Lady's comments on how expensive it is to train nurses. We need extremely competent nurses for the health service of today and tomorrow, and that is why we have invested £321 million


on Project 2000—£114 million this year. I am pleased to say that five out of six nurses gain employment immediately upon qualifying, and all regions are exploring various ways of taking the matter further. They could well follow the example of Mersey in this area, as in so many others, which has ensured that the number of nurses being trained meets the requirements of the health service. That is a matter for the regions to explore, using the many means at their disposal.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend concede that British nurses are the best trained in the world and that when they are trained they are the hardest working, most dedicated workers that one could ever see? As today's high-tech training of nurses far exceeds that in the days of Florence Nightingale, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that regional health authorities gauge more carefully their labour requirements for the years ahead so that we do not train these wonderful people only for them to find that they have no jobs at the end?

Mrs. Bottomley: As ever, my hon. Friend has it exactly right. British nurses are among the best in the world. During my recent visit to Russia, for example, I was particularly pleased to see much British nursing expertise being put to good effect. But it is because we believe in nurses that we have treated them so well, increasing their pay by 50 per cent.—unlike the Opposition, who cut it by 3 per cent.—and introducing the new independent pay review body, the new clinical grading system and Project 2000. My hon. Friend has it right. All regions should do as well as Mersey and ensure that they balance their training input with the number of jobs.

Mr. McCartney: Is it not a disgrace that the Secretary of State gave no commitment to the House today to guarantee a job for every student leaving nursing college in the next financial year? In Leeds, there is 70 per cent. unemployment among student nurses leaving college, in Birmingham, there are 200 applicants for every three nursing jobs and 50 per cent. of student nurses cannot find a placement at the end of their training. Yet the Government have wasted £86 million on incompatible computer software for GP fund holders. That is equivalent to 6,880 new nursing jobs. is it not time that the Government got their priorities right and spent money on nurses who have completed their training?

Mrs. Bottomley: Is it not typical of the Labour party that it always tries to find the cloud over the silver lining? Nurses now stay in the health service for an average of 14 years compared with an average of seven years previously. Turnover has fallen to about 10 per cent. and as low as 3 per cent. in some places. That is because nurses know that they have a worthwhile future in the health service and will continue to do so. Of course I regret those few trained nurses for whom there is no immediate employment; that is why regions are working hard to try to find ways to try to prevent that. But nobody should think other than that nurses have an extremely worthwhile career in the health service, as set out in the chief nursing officer's vision for the future only last week.

Mr. Matthew Banks: Does my right hon. Friend agree that nurses in Merseyside and the United Kingdom as a whole have benefited tremendously from initiatives such as

Project 2000, improved clinical grading schemes and improved training and education, the likes of which were not seen when Labour was in office?

Mrs. Bottomley: How right my hon. Friend is. Nurses will look back at those days when not only the capital programme of the health service was cut, but nurses' pay was cut in real terms—a disgraceful record. As my hon. Friend so rightly says, we have introduced all the key elements that nurses so wanted. "The Health of the Nation", the patients charter and the health service reforms all rely on committed, well-qualified nurses. I am pleased that that is the case in this country.

Dental Services

Mr. Corbett: To ask the Secretary of State For Health what steps have been taken to ensure that family health services authorities will be able to purchase general dental services in the most cost effective manner.

The Minister for Health (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): Family health services authorities do not at present purchase general dental services. Giving them that role is one of the many options identified in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report, on which we are currently consulting interested groups.

Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister able to tell the House that he has rejected Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's recommendations on withdrawing dental services from 1 million nursing mothers and pregnant women? Does he understand that dental treatment delayed or avoided will cost more in the end and will damage the nation's teeth?

Dr. Mawhinney: I understand that Sir Kenneth produced a comprehensive report and one that has been widely welcomed and appreciated. We are committed to consulting on it, and those consultations are going ahead and producing ideas from a variety of interested groups on how we should best move forward. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. When we are in a position to let him have decisions we shall make them available to the House.

Mr. John Marshall: Can my hon. Friend tell the House whether there were more or fewer national health service dentistry through-patients in the first six months of this year? Can he also tell the House how many NHS dentists there are today compared with 1978?

Dr. Mawhinney: I am happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that 28 per cent. more dentists are operating in the health service today—the precise figure is 17,871. I am also happy to be able to tell him that, since 1978, there has been an increase of about 8 million courses of adult treatment per year. He will also be encouraged to know that, since 1 July, 640,000 more patients have registered for NHS dental treatment. Those are all records of which the Conservative side of the House can be justly proud.

District Health Authorities (Funding)

Ms Short: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans she has to review the formula used by her Department for funding district health authorities; and whether she will make a statement.

Dr. Mawhinney: It is for regional health authorities to keep allocation formulae for allocating to districts under review. The Department is reviewing the formula for allocating to regions, and will give guidance to regional health authorities on any lessons learned from the national review which might profitably be applied in the regions' district formulae.

Ms Short: The Minister will know that the formula used nationally rightly gives a higher weight to the number of elderly people in an area, because they are heavier users of the health service. As a consequence, areas such as mine in west Birmingham—a poor community, where people on average live less long—lose money for the health service, and that has been recognised locally as some adjustments have been made.
I should like an undertaking that, until the Minister can get the formula right, my area and others like it—I think that there are six in the country—will not lose any money because of the defect in his formula.

Dr. Mawhinney: I understand the hon. Lady's argument, and also that west Birmingham is considerably over the capitation formula arrangements. In my answer to her question, I sought to encourage her that we are considering more direct measures for NHS care and treatment, as part of our response to the 1991 census and our review of the formulae that we apply to make money available to regional health authorities.
A better basis may emerge from our review—rather than simply issues based on social deprivation—which we might be able to commend to regions for consideration. As the hon. Lady knows, however, decisions on capitation allocations are ultimately matters for the regions.

Mrs. Roe: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the level of health spending and how the money is distributed are clearly important, one should judge the success of the health service by the number of patients treated and the quality of service provided? Has my hon. Friend seen the recent Labour party publication which claims to provide an overview of the health services but which hardly mentions patients in its general obervations? Does not that show that the Opposition have got their priorities all wrong?

Dr. Mawhinney: As always my hon. Friend is exactly right. I searched almost in vain for a mention of the word "patient" in the latest Labour party document. I found the Labour party view that the health service was about £40 billion underfunded. Now we all know that Labour wants to add 26p to the basic rate of tax to fund the NHS. We do not know how much the Liberal Democrats would like to add to the basic rate. They also always claim that more money should be spent—but they do not have the guts of the Labour party to say how much.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will the Minister compensate the people of the west midlands for the £10 million wasted as a result of incompetence, if not corruption, on the part of those whom the Government put in charge of that health authority's affairs?

Dr. Mawhinney: No doubt the hon. Lady was pleased to learn that this year, West Midlands regional health authority received £1·855 billion to spend on health care delivery in the region, which was an increase of more than 2·9 per cent. in cash or 1 per cent. in real terms.
The hon. Lady made a serious point. She knows that the Government take the matter seriously. Recently, I visited Birmingham to make sure that all the lessons that needed to be learned from recent events in the west midlands have been learnt and that appropriate steps have been taken to ensure that they do not occur again. I was encouraged not only by the actions taken by Sir Donald Wilson as the authority's new chairman but by the new mood of confidence and determination pervading the authority, which will ensure that the people of Birmingham and of the west midlands receive the best possible health care, which they deserve.

NHS Trusts

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS trusts are in operation in the Oxford region; what was the number in April 1991; and if she will make a statement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Oxford region is an excellent example of the growing success of the trust movement. From 1 April, 15 units—nearly two thirds of all those in the region—achieved trust status.

Sir Anthony Durant: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, thanks to the excellent work of NHS trusts, including the Royal Berkshire hospital and Battle hospital—which cover my constituency and the neighbouring constituency of Newbury—the 18-month waiting list for cataract, hip and knee operations has been eliminated? That is thanks also to the policies promoted in our manifesto.
Is my right hon. Friend aware that my wife and I attended Royal Berkshire hospital following an accident at Christmas? My wife underwent a serious operation on her shoulder. We received that treatment as national health service patients—[interruption] I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) realises that. As NHS patients, we received an excellent service.

Mrs. Bottomley: I confirm my hon. Friend's comments about the Oxford region and about Newbury in particular. Not only in Oxford but throughout the country, no patient is waiting longer than 18 months for a hip replacement or cataract operation. At the end of last month, only eight patients were waiting for a knee replacement. We have passed another milestone in our sustained and increasingly successful drive to reduce long waiting times. We have honoured a key pledge in our manifesto and in the patients charter.
I must tell my hon. Friend that he has sold the residents of Newbury short. At the West Berkshire priority care NHS trust, which I visited last week, no patient is waiting longer than 15 months. That is a substantial achievement. I am delighted that the care received by my hon. Friend and his wife at the Royal Berkshire trust was of such high quality. A recent patient survey in Newbury showed that well over 90 per cent. of patients were very satisfied with the health care that they receive.

Mr. Skinner: If the NHS satisfies the hon. Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and one or two others in the Tory party, why does not the Secretary of State tell every member of the Tory Cabinet to use the NHS?

Mrs. Bottomley: It is characteristic of Labour to be obsessed with a vicious vendetta against the private sector. I regard the private sector as partners, not pariahs. It is my


responsibility to ensure that the NHS continues to improve and to treat patients to an ever higher standard. The dramatic reductions in waiting times are a great achievement, as are the new immunisation figures that I was able to announce over the weekend. Nye Bevan would be cheering in his grave.

GP Fund Holders

Mr. Roger Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment has been made of the interest of family doctors in the general practitioner fund-holding initiative; and how this has changed since April 1991.

Dr. Mawhinney: A total of 6,000 general practitioners in 1,200 practices are now fund holders. The number of practices in the scheme is now four times as many as in April 1991 and one in four of the population is benefiting from having a fund-holding GP.

Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a further piece of good news and that the extension of GP fund-holding, promised in the Conservative election manifesto, is one of the best ways of improving patient care and making the health service more responsive to people's needs?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That causes unhappiness to the Labour party's ideologues —[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. I have heard enough from the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Boyce).

Dr. Mawhinney: However, it is of great benefit and encouragement to patients. I can tell my hon. Friend that we are looking for ways to extend GP fund holding even more widely, particularly for those practices which by themselves cannot meet the 7,000 practice list requirement.

Ms Lynne: Has the Minister looked into the possibility of setting up locality fund-holding practices, which will help us to get away fromt the two-tier system where fund holders' patients often jump the queue?

Dr. Mawhinney: That is nonsense. As I made clear in Chester the other day, the hon. Lady is going to have to come to terms with the fact that from now on we have shared purchasing in the health service. If the reforms are about providing the most patient-sensitive treatment and care possible, GPs are in a maximal position to determine what is good for their patients. Their role in purchasing is central to the reformed NHS and not only will we not back away from it, as the hon. Lady wants, but we will seek to advance it.

Mr. Sims: Is not one of the most positive aspects of GP fund holding the arrangement whereby consultants can attend at GPs' surgeries, which must be for the benefit of patients? Is my hon. Friend aware that there is some concern among consultants in dermatology, whose numbers are small and who are worried that they may spend too much time travelling, which is not the best use of an important but limited resource?

Dr. Mawhinney: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Recent surveys have shown that 70 per cent. of fund holders report reductions in waiting times, more than 60 per cent. report improved services for follow-up appointments and over 50 per cent. report increased

consultant services in their surgeries. I visited a fund-holding surgery on Saturday and was able to see physiotherapy being delivered to a patient, which was clearly to the benefit of the patient. I note the other point that my hon. Friend has mentioned.

Mr. Blunkett: Will the Minister confirm that he has direct responsibility for the implementation of the Government's proposals for health care in London and that on 16 February the Secretary of State, in her statement to the House and in public pronouncements, gave the impression to the world that new money was to be invested in primary health care and GP practices in London? Will he now confirm that that was grossly misleading—that there is to he no new money and that the money that is to be applied is being taken from other vital health care investment, in London and the rest of the English regions?

Mr. Mans: Nonsense.

Dr. Mawhinney: I think that is probably as good a response to the hon. Gentleman's question as I can think of. The hon. Gentleman knows—although he may not understand—that we have made a real increase in the NHS budget this year. That real increase has been distributed down the normal channels through which money flows from the centre to health care delivery, and it is that real increase which is helping to fund the resources in London. If it were not for this Government. the extra resources would not be made available to improve primary and community health care services in London: that is certainly the tenor of Labour party policy. I am sure that the people of London are very pleased that the Labour party is in opposition and that we are in government.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioner fund-holding practices are in operation in the north-west region; and if she will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tom Sackville): Three hundred and twenty-nine general practitioners in 83 practices are now fund holders in the north-west. That means that nearly one in five of all those living in the north-west now benefits from being registered with a fund-holding practice.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that there must be considerable satisfaction about the increase in the number of fund holders in the north-west region? For the benefit of the whingers on the Opposition Benches, can my hon. Friend list some of the benefits that patients in the north-west will get from fund holding?

Mr. Sackville: I am glad to do so. They will get greater flexibility and an entirely new attitude from general practitioners to the management of their practices. Fund holding will transfer much of the power from hospitals to general practitioners and their patients. May I say, as a fellow north-west MP, that I am sorry that the figure is not greater than one in five of all those who live in the north-west. That is attributable not just to the fact that there are many single-handed and small practices but to the political nonsense that is talked by the Labour party, which represents GP fund holding as being everything that it is not. It is a further example of how the Labour party does not give a fig about patients, only about scoring its own miserable political points.

Mr. Bryan Davies: How will GP fund holders and, even more so, those doctors who stay fully loyal to the NHS provide an adequate service for their patients if trusts such as the Royal Oldham trust place increasing emphasis in their business plans on private practice?

Mr. Sackville: The suggestion that fund-holding GPs are disloyal to the NHS is outrageous. They are some of the finest GP practices in the country and will be joined by many more, including many single-handed and small practices which are taking advantage of agency arrangements. As for the hon. Gentleman's question about trusts placing increasing emphasis on private practice, surveys show that referral patterns by GP fund holders have remained the same as those of non-fund holders. They have referred fewer rather than more patients to private practice.

Family Doctors' Lists

Mr. Wells: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the average number of patients on each family doctor's list (a) in 1979 and (b) in the latest year for which figures are available.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: At 1 October 1979, the average number of patients on family doctors' lists in England was 2,286; the provisional figure for 1 October 1992 is 1,922, representing a reduction of 16 per cent.

Mr. Wells: As a member of another family that is entirely dependent on the NHS, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that reduction? Does not it mean that every GP can spend more time with his patients and can concentrate on preventive medicine, such as the child immunisation programme?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The family doctor service is the basic building block of the NHS. It has a central role in educating the family over the lifetime of that family. My hon. Friend, like so many others, has great confidence in the changes that are taking place. We have almost eradicated a great number of childhood diseases as a result of the success of GP contracts. The Labour party, as ever, resists change and it resisted the GP contract. The success of GPs, health visitors and practice nurses has saved hundreds of thousands of hospital admissions and the lives of tens of thousands of children—once again, a great success.

Mr. Madden: What safeguards exist to ensure that people who are wholly unqualified are not allowed to practise as family doctors? Has the Secretary of State agreed to establish an independent inquiry into how Mohammed Saaed could practise as a general practitioner in Bradford for nearly 30 years, although he was wholly unqualified and despite an avalanche of complaints against him over that time? Will there be an independent inquiry into that disgraceful affair?

Mrs. Bottomley: I well understand the hon. Gentleman's deep concern about that particular matter. It is essential that when general practitioners are appointed, their qualifications are properly scrutinised. I am prepared to discuss the matter with the professional bodies involved to ensure that all possible steps are taken to avoid such an occurrence happening again. As the hon. Gentleman will

know, the quality of general practitioners in this country is second to none and such an example is a source of great concern.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the excellent information about the improvement in health care which she has just given to the House could be the reason why, in a village appraisal given to me this morning, 88 per cent. of the villagers of Caton in my constituency described themselves as being very well satisfied with the health care that they receive?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend is exactly right. It is exactly the reason why a recent survey in Newbury also showed that patients were very satisfied with their care. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the average list size in Newbury has come down by 381 in recent years. It is a dramatic advance caused by the fact that there are 728 more medical practitioners in the area covered by Newbury.

Dental Services

Mr. Enright: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultations she has had on the provision of NHS dental services as outlined in the Bloomfield report; and if she will make a statement.

Dr. Mawhinney: Many individuals, especially dentists, and organisations have submitted their views. I have met a wide range of interests and will continue to do so.

Mr. Enright: In his headlong, gadarene rush to commercialise dental practice, will the Minister pause for a moment and today give a clear and unequivocal guarantee that he will not rob more than 100,000 pregnant women and nursing mothers of free dental care?

Dr. Mawhinney: I did not quite recognise myself in that question. As I have already told the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett), we gave a commitment to consult on the Bloomfield report. As I recall, that commitment was welcomed by members of the Labour party and, I think I am right in saying, even by members of Labour's Front Bench. That is what we are doing: we are listening to the views expressed on those and other matters and when we reach a conclusion, we shall be sure to let the hon. Gentleman and the House know what that conclusion is.

Mr. Couchman: My hon. Friend will know, because I have written to him, that a number of my constituents are finding it increasingly difficult to obtain NHS orthodontic treatment for their children and face increasing waiting times. Will my hon. Friend undertake to examine the issue closely because it is extremely worrying that parents are not obtaining the treatment necessary for their children when it is necessary?

Dr. Mawhinney: As my hon. Friend says, he has written to me about the subject. He will know that we attach as much importance as he does to ensuring that such orthodontic treatment is available to his constituents and to those of other right hon. and hon. Members. For the most part, we are very satisfied with the provision of orthodontic treatment, but there are one or two areas that we are considering more closely to see whether further steps need to be taken.

Waiting Lists

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the latest information she has about waiting lists for hospital treatment.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The latest information shows that last year the number of patients waiting over one year fell by over 58,000—45 per cent.—to the lowest level ever recorded. Half of all admissions to hospital are immediate. Of those who wait, 30 per cent. are admitted within two weeks, three quarters within three months and 98 per cent. within a year.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Secretary of State aware—and, I hope, ashamed—of various devices being used to reduce waiting lists, including consultants putting cases in their drawers when they know that money is not available to fund treatment, as happened in the case of a close relative of mine, and of the underfunding of the health service, which is forcing hospitals such as the Westminster children's hospital to close specialist units and which means that potentially life-saving treatment is denied to children, who are then taken off waiting lists at a stroke.

Mrs. Bottomley: Frankly, I think that it is despicable for the hon. Gentleman to try to undermine the dramatic achievements of health service staff. There have been remarkable results in reducing waiting times, which has also set benchmarks for first out-patient appointments. If the hon. Gentleman has an isolated case that he wants me, or anyone else, to investigate, I will happily do so, but I have been impressed by the way in which region after region, having delivered the targets on in-patient and day cases, are now delivering targets and creating benchmarks on first out-patient appointments.
The individual case to which the hon. Gentleman referred is complex, requiring a specialised form of treatment. The professor responsible for the child's care at Westminster is still responsible now that he has moved to Bristol. Other hospitals are involved and are seeing whether they can find a matched bone marrow donation. The matter is complex and, of course, we all feel greatly for the family involved.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why one-year waiting lists have dropped by no less than 40 per cent. in my constituency over the past year is the excellent and close relationship between the hospital and local general practitioners'? Does she also agree that that could have something to do with the enthusiasm of local GPs for GP fund holding? Given the fact that by the end of the year 80 per cent. of the people in my constituency will be being treated by GP fund holders, is not it likely that that good relationship will continue?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend rightly identifies the great contribution of GP fund holding, but it is not only that: all GPs are seeing the results of our policies in practice dramatically reducing waiting times. All that the Labour party can do is follow the advice of Alice in Wonderland. As the news gets better, they get furiouser and furiouser.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Lies, Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Smith: Will the Prime Minister comment on the views of the European Commission's chief legal adviser that the so-called Danish opt-outs from the Maastricht treaty were worthless? Does not that coincide with the views of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, who said that
it does not alter, either the text … on European union, or the obligations taken on by those who ratify the treaty."— [Official Report, 30 March 1993; Vol. 222, c. 126.]
Does not the constitutional question now being put to the Danish people remain unchanged?

The Prime Minister: All that was set out carefully at the time, but I shall reiterate it for the hon. Gentleman. It was made perfectly clear from the start that what was agreed was an interpretation of the treaty, an intergovernmental agreement binding in international law. That was the case, is the case, and has never been in doubt.

Mr. Booth: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Booth: Does my right hon. Friend share the feeling of many Conservative Members that unit fines are not working well? Does he also share the feeling of many of us that the fact that previous convictions cannot adequately be taken into account by the courts is a great shame and will he therefore change the rules so that persistent offenders can be identified by the courts and punished severely?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear that he shares the concern expressed about some, although not all, aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. He has made it clear that he wants to see amendments and to introduce them as soon as is appropriate. As my hon. Friend may know, my right hon. and learned Friend met the Magistrates Association this morning to decide how best to proceed.

Mr. John Smith: As there is now overwhelming opposition from parents, teachers, governors and experts to the Government's insistence on imposing tests on schools this year, why does not the Prime Minister for once admit that he is wrong, do the sensible thing and withdraw the tests for this year?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have exchanged views on that subject before. We believe that it is important to proceed with the tests, not least so that Sir Ron Dearing can draw on that experience, as he has said that he wishes to do, in order to improve the tests. The right hon. and learned


Gentleman will recall frequently calling for this country's work force to be better trained. Why does he consistently oppose measures designed to bring that about?

Mr. John Smith: If the tests are so important that the Government are prepared to go well beyond the limits of reason and common sense to impose them, why are private schools, to which many Conservative Members send their children, exempt completely from them?

The Prime Minister: It is reason and common sense to test pupils. It is reason and common sense to know how well they are doing. It is reason and common sense to have that information so that we can put right the matters that are not being dealt with adequately in those schools at the moment. That is our responsibility in the state sector and that is what my right hon. Friend is seeking to do.

Mr. John Smith: Will the Prime Minister now answer the question that I put to him? What reason and common sense is there to impose them on the public sector, but to leave the private sector untouched

The Prime Minister: We have a direct responsibility for making sure in the public sector that pupils are taught adequately and well. In the private sector the results of the schools have been very good—[Interruption.]—and many of them have their own tests. We have a direct responsibility in the public sector and, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, the tests, for example, of seven-year-olds, have been successful. They have been good for pupils, good for teachers and good for schools. The right hon. and learned Gentleman would join forces with those who want industrial militancy to end the tests, irrespective of what he has said in the past about having a well-trained work force. Words only from the right hon. and learned Gentleman which he will not back up with action when necessary.

Sir James Kilfedder: Will the Prime Minister, on behalf of this country, express our deepest sympathy to the people of Sri Lanka following the horrific and callous murder of President Premadasa and many others? Will he express the hope that that and other atrocities will not undermine the stability of that beautiful country, which is an essential member of the Commonwealth.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend sets out views that will be shared widely across the House and the country. It was a particularly brutal and pointless assassination which will have done immense damage to Sri Lanka around the world. I wish the very best of good fortune to the new president in due course and to the Government in restoring stability after that dreadful event.

Mr. Ashdown: If the House votes to end the opt-out of the social chapter, will the Prime Minister refuse to ratify the Maastricht treaty?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to respond to a hypothetical question—[Interruption]—to which I have responded on previous occasions. I refer him to my previous answers.

Mr. Spring: Has my right hon. Friend seen reports that housing repossessions are down 24 per cent. on last year? Does he agree that that is excellent news which bodes well not only for the housing sector but for consumer confidence and for continuing revival in the economy?

The Prime Minister: Yes, it is excellent news. It is also excellent news that, in the view of the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the action by the Government and lenders last year prevented over 50,000 repossessions that would otherwise have taken place. There are now clear signs of recovery in the housing market. That can only be helped by interest rates of 6 per cent. and mortgage rates at their lowest for over 30 years. I believe that that, together with other economic indicators in the last few weeks, point firmly to real recovery.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. O'Brien: Will the Prime Minister accept the congratulations of many on these Benches that his Government are now in full retreat on his citizens charter for criminals, the Criminal Justice Act 1991? Does he now admit that he got it wrong to pass that law, which restricts the ability of the courts to send to prison people who have committed serious offences—that at a time when crime has doubled and when he has been imposing a freeze on future spending on the police? Will he now accept that his credibility as the leader of the party of law and order is in tatters?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully a few moments ago he would know that I said that I shared the concern about some, but not all, of the aspects of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, and we have made it clear that we are prepared to change those. The hon. Gentleman may recall that a great deal of cross-party advice on the 1991 Act was given, not least by many Opposition Members.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has rightly recognised the importance of our manufacturing and construction industries in this country's economic recovery. Competition is essential, but does my right hon. Friend accept that a level playing field is equally important? Will he state what further steps he and his Government will take to improve the ability of manufacturing and construction to contribute to the recovery of our economy?

The Prime Minister: I share the view, which has for a long time been expressed by my hon. Friend, about the importance of manufacturing industry. He will know of the remarkable improvement in manufacturing exports over recent months and the remarkable improvement in productivity of manufacturing industry. They are now biting deep with exports into the European market and beyond. My hon. Friend is right about the need to have a level playing field in Europe and beyond. As my hon. Friend will know, that will be improved by the Maastricht treaty.

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the report issued over the weekend that the much-trumpeted decrease in the unemployment figures is little more than a piece of spring cleaning of the figures by


officials at the semi-privatised employment and benefit offices? It has been said that falsehood has a perennial spring—would not it be wiser to recognise that Britain's true unemployment rate is now in the region of 4 million? Is not that a national disgrace? When will the Government take some effective action to put people back to work?

The Prime Minister: The requirement to put people back to work is felt at least as keenly by Conservative Members as in any other part of the House, which is precisely why we have taken the difficult measures to make it possible to get people back to work in secure jobs. That is why we fail to understand why Opposition Members consistently support matters like the social charter, which would keep people unemployed for a long time.

Mr. Marland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this weekend the citizens of Gloucestershire were again subjected to an invasion of new age travellers? Is he further aware that the Gloucestershire police have done a first-class job in breaking up the convoys and keeping them on the move? Is there any chance of introducing any legislation or further measures to restrain those unwelcome visitors between now and the summer? They call themselves new age travellers, but in Gloucestershire they are known as new age vermin.

The Prime Minister: I sympathise strongly with the citizens of Gloucestershire over the trouble that they have faced with new age travellers. I warmly congratulate the police on the action that they have taken. We are examining what further legislative measures can be taken to give the police more powers, but I cannot promise that they will necessarily be introduced before the summer.

Mr. McWilliam: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 4 May.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McWilliam: Is the Prime Minister aware of any group of teachers who have said that they will not either teach or assess their pupils?

The Prime Minister: That is a question better directed to my right hon. Friend, but I am aware of teachers' leaders who seem to be encouraging their members to take industrial action against the interests of the pupils of those schools, which I regret.

Aberdeen

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: To ask the Prime Minister if he has any plans to visit Aberdeen in the near future.

The Prime Minister: I am making plans for a series of visits to all parts of the country and hope to include Scotland among them.

Mr. Robertson: If my right hon. Friend is able to visit Aberdeen at the end of the year, will he consider allowing his visit to coincide with the first wave of civil service relocations from the Department of Trade and Industry's London-based oil and gas division to Aberdeen? Will he consider opening the DTI's new Aberdeen office, which so vividly demonstrates the Government's commitment to Aberdeen, the north-east of Scotland and the North sea oil and gas industry?

The Prime Minister: I shall certainly consider that invitation if it comes to me through the appropriate sources and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for anticipating it. The fact that we are opening that office shows that we are committed to expand as and when companies move key functions to Aberdeen. It certainly shows our faith in the future of the North sea industry and the north-east of Scotland. The division will begin moving there in the autumn. I know how welcome that news is to my hon. Friend and how hard he worked to bring it about.

Mr. Robert Hughes: If the Prime Minister visits Aberdeen, will he recall that the petroleum revenue tax changes he proposes will give large windfall profits to very large companies, but will savagely attack small companies, especially those in the drilling and exploration sector? If he wishes to express his confidence in the North sea, would not it be better to change that to allow people to develop fields and exploration as and when they come?

The Prime Minister: As it happens, the reform improves the incentives for further development of existing fields and new development of important fields that would have paid tax at 83 per cent. That is good for investment, jobs, Aberdeen, the north-east, Scotland and the United Kingdom.

Madam Speaker: Order. Time is up. Ten-minute rule Bill, Mr. Anthony Steen. It would be helpful if lion. Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quietly so that we may get on with our business here. I am sure that Mr. Steen is in good voice this afternoon.

Deregulation

Mr. Anthony Steen: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to empower the Secretaries of State and the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food to repeal those rules and regulations which unnecessarily restrict the profitability and competitive nature of commerce and industry; to encourage enterprise in small businesses; and for connected purposes.
I am seeking to introduce a Bill which will dramatically cut the number of rules and regulations which, like an insidious poison, have infiltrated into every nook and cranny in our way of life. It will empower every Government Department to halt the headlong rush for more legislation; instead directing them to evaluate existing legislation, the rules and regulations which arose, the number of public officials employed and the damaging effect that such legislation has had on job creation, the private sector and its profitability.
There were five times more pages of legislation in 1989 than in 1979. What has the deregulation unit that was specifically set up to curb the growth of unnecessary rules and regulations been doing?
Brussels churned out five volumes of legislation before we joined the Community; it now churns out 37 volumes each year. What has the director-general of DG XXIII been up to with his army of officials? He has not improved the regulatory environment. As a result, our economy has been damaged because of the suffocating effect of rules and regulations accompanied by the ever increasing numbers of officials, who by their very existence erode the profitability of business and our people. Far from lifting the burden, the load has become crippling.
Perhaps the House would join me on a trip round my constituency to see what I mean. Perhaps we should start on safari at Paignton zoo, which boasts an ornamental lake. It is not infested with tsetse fly or crocodiles; it is just a common or garden lake—but not as far as the National Rivers Authority is concerned. It says that one cannot have a lake without a licence, and the licence costs money.
The zoo director tells me that the environmental health officers are hunting him down because every load of rubbish must be categorised and be accompanied by a signed certificate. Should zoo staff really be clambering over skips counting coke cans and hamburger wrappers? Enforcing those and other rules costs the zoo £60,000 a year, diverting money from investment to paying the salaries of public officials to enforce unnecessary rules and regulations which affect the zoo's viability.
Let us drop into one of our excellent supermarkets en route to our hotel. In the old days, J. Arthur Rank kept children entertained by Saturday cinema; today's supermarket equivalent should be a crèche. Not surprisingly, few supermarkets can afford that facility because of another daft regulation requiring one member of staff on duty for every eight children, two for nine children, three for up to 24 children. When there are three staff a supervisor is also required. The losers are not only the children but their parents, yet in many primary schools there is only one teacher to at least 30 children.
Time for a drink? But what is the barman up to, writing on all the labels? I forgot. He is complying with the alcohol strength labelling regulations which require a notice on every bottle of its alcohol strength. Some hon. Members may think that that is absolute rubbish, and they are right.

Rubbish too is what they may see if they wend their way through the beautiful Devon countryside where, unfortunately, contractors are throwing some of their waste over the hedges rather than going through the tortuous process of using the public tip, once so simple. Under the Control of Pollution Act 1974, all contractors must apply for a licence, which takes several months to process and for which they must pay, as well as a tipping ticket at £12 a throw.
Now to our hotel. It is not just the Thurlestone which has been caught up by the electricity at work regulations, whereby every electrical device must be tested regularly by a computer or a qualified electrician. Television sets, trouser presses. lamps and kettles all have to have their own log book. And, dare I say it, even the Serjeant at Arms has caught this bug. Every publicly and privately owned piece of equipment in the entire estate must be tested and logged. In the Palace of Westminster there is no problem in finding the money—alas, the taxpayer must pay—but in private hotels the owner must pay. Where does he find the money to fund additional staff? No wonder the tourist industry is suffering as a result, not just of the recession, but of a surfeit of red tape.
While we are on the Palace of Westminster, may I remind all hon. Members that office staff should not use Tippex for hiding typing errors? Together with plutonium and sulphuric acid, it is a dangerous substance under the Control of Substances Hazards to Health Regulations 1988 and must be locked away at all times, preferably in an underground bunker.
How did we get into this mess? How has all this happened without any of us apparently being aware? I have traced two principal sources: directives from Brussels and legislation from our own Parliament. Directives from Brussels are often quite sensible and come to Britain suggesting one way of dealing with a problem, but once the directive gets here Whitehall officials occupy themselves by rewriting it, more often than not with the opposite effect, causing unnecessary and often immeasurable damage. The scrap metal trade has been savagely hit by officials' interpretations, and now our chemical industry is in their sights. Then there is legislation from our own Parliament, particularly the setting up of self-financing regulatory authorities which make quangos look like cuddly toys. They are menacing monsters not only with lists of regulations to enforce but often with the ability to create new ones.
It is not surprising, therefore, that 2,945 statutory instruments came through Parliament in 1991 as a result of the many Acts of Parliament which created the self-financing regulatory authorities such as the Financial Services Act 1986. the Food Safety Act 1990 and the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Bodies such as the National Rivers Authority and the Agricultural Development Advisory Service all have their own army of officials demanding compliance and threatening penalties, a racket that would not seem out of place in Palermo. Now there is talk of a new environmental agency employing 10,000 public officials.
In addition to rules and regulations there are other requirements, trade statistics, not just for the Department of Trade and Industry but for Europe whereby firms trading with other European Community countries must list the value added tax numbers of every company with which they trade and return the form within 14 days. There


is a mountain of paper requiring endless time and additional people, employed and paid by the private sector to do what is demanded
I forgot: I should have included a visit to Dartington in my constituency which has a marvellous £170,000 arts project receiving a mere £14,000 grant from the publicly funded South West Arts. Dartington has had to employ an additional person one-quarter time to deal with the massive amount of paperwork and requests for information conditional upon the grant.
The fact that things are getting out of hand was recognised by the Health and Safety Executive when in its newsletter last November it warned against bogus burdens on business, saying that misinterpretation of the laws relating to electricity, chemicals, hazards and display equipment was causing unnecessary delay and expense to firms at a difficult time. Businessmen insist that they are not the enemy and that we must train the officials and the regulators. One cafe owner told me that the weights and measures people treated her like a criminal. Their manner was adversarial and made her feel like a crook. Christopher Booker, the well-known champion of deregulation, said:
Trading standards officers and inspectors of pollution seemed to be imbued with a zealousness more akin to a new cult.
The threat of penalty is having the effect of freezing everything, so that it is just like Pompeii after Vesuvius erupted. It is fixing industry at a point in time, and the culture of enterprise, of entrepreneurs, is dying.
Finally, let us just drop in for a cup of tea at the South Hams district council, where officials are too aware of the damage done by too much negative application of regulations—too much stick and not enough carrot, which is exactly what my distinguished constituent, Lord Robens, implied 20 years ago. Not that local authorities do not have their problems, what with the Audit Commission pressing them to increase standards of performance, which in turn means a more rigorous application of statutory duties and regulations being more zealously enforced, when officers are faced with target enforcement standards.
This Bill attempts to turn the clock back, but it cannot happen without a fundamental culture change on the part of central Government and local government, or without the taming of SEFRAs.

Mr. Bob Cryer: It does not seem very sensible to try to stem the number of regulations that Ministers have produced by giving Ministers more powers to make more regulations, but that is precisely what the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) proposes to do. All the regulations of which he complains have been produced by delegated powers, passed by this House, to give powers to Ministers both to make and to repeal regulations.
Instead, the hon. Gentleman should be telling Ministers to produce repeal orders to remove unnecessary regulations. I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is complaining about the very regulations and Acts of Parliament that he trotted through the Lobby time after time to support at the behest of the Whips.
If the Government are serious about getting rid of regulations, and if they really believe in the hon. Gentleman's proposal—to give Ministers more power to

make more regulations to get rid of regulations—then Ministers will have the opportunity of going into the Lobby and voting for the Bill. My guess is that they will not do that.
The hon. Member for South Hams specifically mentioned health and safety at work. Is there any hon. Member who seriously wants to make the workplace more dangerous so as to create greater profits and generate more competition? We shall find out when the vote takes place. Tory Members complain bitterly about the number of days lost in strike action and cheerfully go through the Lobbies to pass legislation against trade unions. Indeed, they have done so on many occasions—

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: And will do so again.

Mr. Cryer: I must tell the hon. Gentleman that probably 10 times more days are lost because of injuries at work than because of strikes. That being so, I expect all Conservative Members to vote against the Bill, which proposes to remove the health and safety provisions that attempt to protect people and stop so many days at work being lost because of the loss of life and limb.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned standards of food hygiene, too. It was not very clever of him to talk about the lowering of standards in this area. At least one Minister had to resign because of salmonella outbreaks due, surely, to a lowering of food hygiene standards. I do not suppose that any hon. Member wants those standards to fall.
The hon. Gentleman also made a point about the Common Market pouring out directives, but he has always voted for the Common Market when it has been discussed in this Chamber. The answer is not to attack it; it is to recognise that this nation and this House can produce standards if they so desire. As it happens—the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware of this—Common Market directives are actually reducing standards of health and safety at work. We ought to ensure that our standards are higher than those of other nations; we must preserve them.
To give carte blanche to Ministers to eradicate legislation which the House has produced is a dangerous proposal. The proposed Bill should require the House to examine primary legislation and to be careful about giving such wide powers to Ministers. The Bill contains a dangerous proposal which would compound the Government's felony of issuing regulations. Therefore, we should vote against it.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 116, Noes 166.

Division No. 254]
[3.45 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Alton, David
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Ancram, Michael
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Budgen, Nicholas


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Butcher, John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Coe, Sebastian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Colvin, Michael


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Congdon, David


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Body, Sir Richard
Cormack, Patrick


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Couchman, James






Dickens, Geoffrey
Marland, Paul


Duncan, Alan
Marlow, Tony


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Mills, Iain


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Moate, Sir Roger


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fabricant. Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Pawsey, James


Fry, Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Richards, Rod


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gillan, Cheryl
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Shersby, Michael


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Sims, Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Hargreaves, Andrew
Speed, Sir Keith


Harris, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Hawkins, Nick
Spring, Richard


Hawksley, Warren
Sproat, Iain


Hendry, Charles
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Sweeney, Walter


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Sykes, John


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Jenkin, Bernard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Jessel, Toby
Tracey, Richard


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Johnston, Sir Russell
Tyler, Paul


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Walden, George


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Wallace, James


Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)
Ward, John


Kilfedder, Sir James
Waterson, Nigel


Kirkwood, Archy
Watts, John


Knapman, Roger
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Whittingdale, John


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Wilkinson, John


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Legg, Barry
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Lidington, David
Wolfson, Mark


Luff, Peter



Lynne, Ms Liz
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclennan, Robert
Sir Michael Neubert and Mr. Anthony Steen.


Maitland, Lady Olga





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Callaghan, Jim


Ainger, Nick
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Canavan, Dennis


Armstrong, Hilary
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ashton, Joe
Clapham, Michael


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Barnes, Harry
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cohen, Harry


Betts, Clive
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blunkett, David
Corbett, Robin


Boyce, Jimmy
Corston, Ms Jean


Bradley, Keith
Cox, Tom


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cryer, Bob


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Cummings, John


Burden, Richard
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Byers, Stephen
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John





Dafis, Cynog
Mahon, Alice


Dalyell, Tam
Mallon, Seamus


Darling, Alistair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Maxton, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Meale, Alan


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Denham, John
Miller, Andrew


Dixon, Don
Morgan, Rhodri


Donohoe, Brian H.
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Dowd, Jim
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Mowlam, Marjorie


Eagle, Ms Angela
Mudie, George


Eastham, Ken
Mullin, Chris


Enright, Derek
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Etherington, Bill
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Faulds, Andrew
O'Hara, Edward


Fisher, Mark
O'Neill, Martin


Flynn, Paul
Patchett, Terry


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Pickthall, Colin


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.


Gapes, Mike
Pope, Greg


Garrett, John
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gerrard, Neil
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Primarolo, Dawn


Grocott, Bruce
Quin, Ms Joyce



Gunnell, John
Randall, Stuart


Hain, Peter
Raynsford, Nick


Hall, Mike
Redmond, Martin


Hanson, David
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hardy, Peter
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Rogers, Allan


Hinchliffe, David
Rooney, Terry


Hoey, Kate
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Sedgemore, Brian


Home Robertson, John
Sheerman, Barry


Hoon, Geoffrey
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Simpson, Alan


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Spellar, John


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Jowell, Tessa
Trimble, David


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Turner, Dennis


Khabra, Piara S.
Walley, Joan


Kilfoyle, Peter
Wareing, Robert N


Leighton, Ron
Wicks, Malcolm


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Litherland, Robert
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Livingstone, Ken
Wilson, Brian


Llwyd, Elfyn
Winnick, David


McAllion, John
Worthington, Tony


McFall, John
Wray, Jimmy


McKelvey, William
Wright, Dr Tony


Mackinlay, Andrew



McMaster, Gordon
Tellers for the Noes:


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Terry Lewis.


Madden, Max

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

As amended (in the Committee), considered.

Madam Speaker: Before we start the debates on the Report stage, I have an announcement. I understand that there is some interest in new clause 22, with which amendment No. 2 is grouped. I am sure that it will be of assistance to the House if I let it be known that the effects of new clause 22 and amendment No. 2 are mutually incompatible. Therefore, if new clause 22 is agreed to, amendment No. 2 will fall. On the other hand, if the new clause is defeated, I shall permit a Division on amendment No. 2 when the time comes. Perhaps we can now proceed.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware that, in Committee—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Walker: You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that in Committee, and now as we are about to debate the Report stage, there has been, and will be, no opportunity to address specifically the impact of the Maastricht treaty on the treaty of Union and thus on the creation of a single unitary Parliament. I remind you that the Scottish Parliament was never dissolved, so this Parliament, and particularly the Scottish Members in this House and peers in the other place, is the guardian of the Scottish Parliament. As we have not debated the issue—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Walker: As we have not debated the issue specifically, and we have not been, and will not be, given the opportunity to vote on it in a way that would influence the people of Scotland, it seems that we are heading for a constitutional crisis. If the other place were to debate that aspect of the treaty of Union and the impact on that treaty of the Maastricht treaty and were to pass an amendment that took note of that, just as new clause 9, which has not been selected, would have done, would it be in order if it came back to this Chamber?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that I would not dream of determining what might or might not happen in the other place. He knows that I was more than happy to see him and colleagues to discuss the matter, and I looked at it carefully. New clause 9 is beyond the scope of the Bill and therefore out of order.

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You told the House that clause 22 and amendment No. 2 are incompatible and that, unless new clause 22 were negatived, it would not be possible to have a vote on amendment No. 2. Can I take it that you would allow a vote on amendment No. 2 if new clause 22 either were not moved or were withdrawn?

Madam Speaker: Of course, if new clause 22 is withdrawn or not moved, I shall allow a vote on amendment No. 2. That is logically the case.

Sir Russell Johnston: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. It would help hon. Members greatly to know whether, apart from the lead amendments in each of the seven groups, you would be prepared to allow votes on any other amendments grouped with them.

Madam Speaker: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, I considered that matter carefully before I took the Chair today, and my answer is a straightforward no, unless, of course, they are consequential. I shall not allow any other votes on the amendments.

Mr. Alex Salmond: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you help the House by saying whether this is the final selection of amendments and new clauses, or might you change your mind as the debate proceeds? For example, it would have been interesting to debate the inclusion in the referendum of a question on the social chapter, a concept which has much support in the House. Is this the final selection, or may you, Madam Speaker, change your mind?

Madam Speaker: I am not after changing my mind., but the hon. Gentleman might try me.

Mr. David Trimble: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I was disappointed that my amendment No. 54, which raises an issue on the social protocol separate from the selected amendments, is not on the list. The list is described as a provisional selection of amendments, so I was surprised to hear you say that this was not a provisional list but rather, in some respects, a final list. Will you confirm that this is a provisional list, and, if so, is there some prospect of you looking again at the separate issues that my amendment No. 54 raises?

Madam Speaker: The list has to be provisional to allow for any new circumstances that might arise. By tradition, it is always described as provisional. I have selected these amendments, and the object of so doing is to allow a full and proper debate on major areas of the Bill. I gave careful thought to the matter before doing so.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will there be an opportunity for the Foreign Secretary to explain further his attitude towards the second referendum in Denmark? You may recollect that, at the Edinburgh summit, the Foreign Secretary said:
It is not a political reality to suppose that we would sit down and negotiate a new treaty of wherever it is with I I members without Denmark.
Then, Madam Speaker, you will recollect—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am not having long points of order today which are really matters for debate. The hon. Gentleman has a point of order for me. I think he began by asking whether I would allow the Foreign Secretary to speak. I am very willing for the Foreign Secretary or any other Member of the House to speak during the debate. Does that help the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Budgen: Not entirely, Madam Speaker, because it has since appeared that it is proposed that the I I should meet together for some purposes which are not defined and not confined to exclude a new treaty. I hope that you will allow a debate which enables the Foreign Secretary to explain his position; otherwise, some of us might say that he had betrayed Denmark.

Madam Speaker: I have shown by the provisional list of amendments the types of debate that will be taking place.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You kindly allowed a glimmer of light to appear between what you described as your provisional selection and your final selection. I wonder whether, in that tiny space, I could insert a plea for amendment No. 3, which I am sure will have the unique attraction of uniting the House in the provision of new criteria for convergence in the treaty, and which therefore deserves the opportunity to be put to the House so that it can receive that all-party agreement.

Madam Speaker: I have given careful consideration to all the amendments. I see that amendment No. 3 stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman, but I shall not allow a Division on that.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to the third debate, which has a constitutional character? You have selected new clause 2, standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), which relates to the constitutional method by which the House has to approve any change in the treaty, for which there is provision. We are grateful for that, as it is an important constitutional matter.
However, in the same group, you have also selected new clause 4, which deals with the proposed single common foreign and security policy. It is proposed that we should debate whether the Foreign Secretary can assent to any matter that relates to a single policy, with or without the consent of the House. If my right hon. Friend had not, in his wisdom, tabled new clause 2 and it had not existed to be selected, we might have been voting on, rather than merely debating, the important constitutional question of the control of this nation's foreign policy.
I do not wish to apply further pressure, Madam Speaker, but you should consider new clause 4 because, it was only a matter of chance that my right hon. Friend tabled new clause 2 which takes precedence.

Madam Speaker: As he well knows, the hon. Gentleman gave me a great deal of homework on constitutional matters at the weekend, and I spent a lot of time considering them as well as new clause 4. I did not come to this Chair having determined during the past hour what the House should debate, but have given the matter a lot of thought over a long period. I am afraid that the House must accept my judgment.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Could you confirm, Madam Speaker, that the selection of amendments for debate and the suggestions for Divisions will mean that hon. Members who support the passage of the Bill and the social protocol will be able to unite with hon. Members who oppose the Bill and the protocol, and that they will be opposed by hon. Members who support the Bill but do not support the social protocol?

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members must decide for themselves whether they are opposed or unopposed, as it is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Can you confirm, Madam Speaker, that it has been past practice that, if a new clause or amendment has been discussed or voted on in the House, it is unlikely to

reappear, provisionally or otherwise, as a selected item for debate and Division? That is the case with new clause 43, in the name of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
Are you aware that Scotland has been misled by the hon. Gentleman into believing that you would select it for a Division? He said:
If Opposition parties unite behind the clause, it will carry around 40 votes in the Commons and put the Prime Minister in an impossible position.
Are you aware, Madam Speaker, that few people slept in Scotland last night, faced with the excitement presented by that prospect.
Can you confirm that you will adhere to the usual practice and that you will not select matters for discussion that have already been disposed of? Can you also confirm that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan should not mislead the Scottish people in that way? They are not all as daft as he is.

Madam Speaker: I am utterly charmed that at least one Member of the House supports my selection. Thank you very much.

Mr. Trimble: Amendment No. 2 is couched in the same terms as amendment No. 27, which we considered in Committee. You took the view, Madam Speaker, that new clause 22 and amendment No. 2 were incompatible. When we discussed amendment No. 27 in Committee, the Attorney-General assured the House that it would have no effect or impact on the Bill or on ratification of the treaty. I wonder whether you have received different legal advice which would indicate that amendment No. 2 would have some effect, despite the fact that he assured us that it would not.

Madam Speaker: The only advice that I listen to is advice as to whether amendments and new clauses are in order. After receiving such advice, I have to determine which to select and I have done so. May we now proceed with the Bill?

New clause 42

COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

'.A person may be proposed as a member or alternate member for the United Kingdom of the Committee of the Regions constituted under Article 198a of the Treaty establishing the European Community only if, at the time of the proposal, he is an elected member of a local authority.'.—[Mr. Gorel-Jones.]

Brought up, and read the First tune.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): I beg to move. That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendment No. 43.

Amendment No. 32. in page 1, line 13 after 'representatives', insert
'allocated between England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland as closely as possibly in proportion to the respective electorates.'.

Amendment No. 34, in page 1, line 13, after 'representatives', insert
'selected on a basis which reflects the numerical distribution of MPs from each constituent nation of the United Kingdom'.

Mr. Garel-Jones: During our debates in Committee, it was made clear to the House that the Government would have much preferred not to be tied down by the limitations that are now contained in clause 1, in relation to the Committee of the Regions. However, as I also told the House on 25 February, the Government will now accept the principle that stands in clause 1 of the amended Bill. New clause 42 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, which must be read with amendment No. 43, is not designed to change the principle contained in amendment No. 28, which was moved in Committee. It is designed simply to ensure that our own legislation is drafted to achieve the purpose of amendment No. 28 and no more, and is legally watertight and consistent with our obligations under the treaty.
As a matter of legislative drafting, the change made to clause 1(1) by amendment No. 28 would operate as a proviso, so that title II falls in and out of the definition of "treaties" in the European Communities Act 1972, depending on whether or not United Kingdom representatives were drawn from elected local government representatives. That clearly does far more than the proponents of the original amendment intended —hence new clause 42 transposes the substance to a new clause operating directly on the conditions for appointment to the committee rather than make a legal nonsense of clause 1.
Also, it must be made clearer that the United Kingdom is limiting the category of persons who can nominate for appointment to serve on the Committee of the Regions, not purporting to fetter the council's power of appointment itself. Finally, article 198a of the treaty provides that members and alternate members of the committee shall be appointed for four years. Local councillors also generally serve for four years, but their terms are hardly likely to be congruent. It is possible to read the Bill as drafted as requiring that a person remains a local government representative for the duration of his appointment as a member of the committee.
It would be a breach of our treaty obligations if our domestic law meant that a member of the Committee of the Regions could no longer serve on it once his term as a local government councillor expired. As the treaty provides that the term of office of committee members shall be renewable, we would have liked to be able to renominate an existing member who was making a worthwhile contribution to the committee's work, even if he had ceased to be a local government representative since his appointment to the committee.
That is why the last seven words of new clause 34 as originally tabled last week provided that existing members of the committee could also be proposed for appointment to the committee. However, discussions through the usual channels suggested that that might not be the will of the House, so we have tabled new clause 42 as it appears on today's amendment paper, without that alternative qualification for eligibility to serve on the committee.

Sir Roger Moate: New clause 42 makes it clear that a person may be proposed
only if, at the time of the proposal, he is an elected member of a local authority.
Are parish councils as well as all other councils included in the definition of a local authority? That seems an important point.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I believe that the definition includes any person who was properly elected under the democratic process to any local government authority in Britain. I am sure that that extends to parish councils but if, in the course of the debate, I have any reason to believe that is not the case, I will inform the House.
Several of my hon. Friends who represent, as I do, English constituencies have tabled amendment No. 34, which seeks to establish representation on the Committee of the Regions on the same lines as in the House. Amendment No. 32 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) takes a similar line.
As I told my hon. Friend on 25 February, it is not realistic that England should have 20 of the 24 seats, leaving four to be divided between Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I think that a majority of right hon. and hon. Members, including those of us who represent English constituencies, recognise that this would not be a satisfactory or reasonable way of establishing our regional representation on the committee. As I said in Committee, we want to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are appropriately and fairly represented.

Mr. George Robertson: I welcome the Government's surrender to, or acceptance of—however they would like it to be read—the vote of the House. There was some noise abroad that the Government would not accept their defeat in Committee and might seek to reverse it on Report. I cannot understand why that rumour got around, because the same majority that defeated the Government in Committee—when they were foolish enough to press it to a vote—would defeat them on Report or at any other stage.
I welcome the Government's rewording in new clause 42. As the Minister rightly admitted, this is not the original new clause that the Government wanted to submit. He says that the improvement follows consultation through the usual channels—by which he means, "I refuse to table the original new clause that I was going to suggest to replace the wording of the Opposition amendment." This is a considerable improvement on the original.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not know what point the hon. Gentleman is seeking to make. Clearly he finds it reprehensible for the Government to accept the will of the House, and reprehensible that discussions should then take place through the usual channels in order for the Government to ascertain what those who tabled the amendment were seeking to do, and to comply with it. I do not regard that as reprehensible; I regard it as the proper way of conducting business.

Mr. Robertson: I never suggested that it was reprehensible; I said that it was welcome and surprising that the Government should listen to anybody other than their own echoes. If they are willing to take on board the views of the House in this regard, I hope that they will be willing to look at other subjects and listen carefully to what is being said.
It is entirely welcome—and almost unprecedented—that the Government should consult on these matters and abide by the outcome of that consultation. I have to say, without expressing any undue cynicism, that the


Government's willingness to obey the will of the House and listen to consultations has more to do with their fear of being defeated than with the bright new dawning of understanding in the field of consultation.
Let us be merciful, in the circumstances, and welcome what we have got. What we have got is quite significant —a victory for the House of Commons—inasmuch as the Government now accept the principle, which the Minister resisted through debate after debate, that the composition of the Committee of the Regions should be selected from among local government representives and not from that tiny who's who that makes up the Government's own list of respectable nominees to serve on everything from local health boards to the chairmanship of the largest quangos in the country. The Government had to accept that principle, and I am grateful that it is now enshrined in legislation.
Of course, other questions remain to be asked in relation to the Committee of the Regions. The Minister said in his statement—as he said to the House on 25 February—that of course the Government would accept the principle that those who serve on the Committee of the Regions should come from the ranks of elected local government councillors, but can he explain why he sent a letter to the president of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities only a few weeks ago suggesting that the will of the House would be only one of the methods that the Government were considering? If the Government have now accepted the principle, will the Minister say explicitly that they will accept the will of the House and choose only from elected councillors? I see that the Minister is nodding his head, which gives more clarification than his correspondence.
Now that the Minister has had time to consider the import of what has been said, following the Government's defeat, and to consult officials about the rewording of the new clause, may I ask him whether he has had time to think through how the British delegation will be chosen? We believed that it was important to establish here the principle that the Committee of the Regions representatives would be local authority representatives. We did not go beyond that.
Some have suggested that, by refusing to specifiy the method of selection, we have left it open to the Government to choose Committee of the Regions representatives from among the ranks of Conservative councillors—that is, if, after Thursday next, there are still sufficient Conservative councillors left to sit on the Committee of the Regions.
The Government, and especially the Minister of State, will, I know, have given some thought to this question. I hope, therefore, that he will tell us precisely how the Government intend to deal with this matter. Our strong view was that representation on the Committee of the Regions should not be laid down by the House of Commons—that its composition should be decided neither by Government Ministers nor by means of a provision inserted in the Bill.
If we believed in the principle of local government power and authority and the devolution of power to that level, the composition of the Committee of the Regions

should be left to the local government associations, which include representatives of all the major parties and which represent all the regions in the country.
Whom does the Minister of State intend to consult? The local government associations have devolved the power to take decisions on many issues to the Local Government International Bureau, which has been engaged in widespread consultations on the subject. It has put forward a number of ideas which it wants to raise with the Minister. Is the Minister of State willing to consult the Local Government International Bureau, with a view to establishing the composition of the Committee of the Regions?
Will the Minister of State ensure that representation of the regions is properly balanced? He said that he was not in favour of the amendment of one of his hon. Friends, which has not been selected for debate, providing for 20 English regional representatives and four representatives for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Since the Minister of State rejected that amendment and therefore told us what he is against, can he now, after all the detailed thought that has been put into it, tell us precisely what the composition of the Committee of the Regions is to be and how the regions will be represented? Can we be assured, as the House has the right to be assured, that local government representatives will come from the regions that they are expected to represent?
The Minister suggested that representation will be broken down region by region. Can we be assured that there will be no question of councillors being selected from one region nominally to represent the interests of another? This is not a hypothetical question. Allegations have been made outside the House that there may be some jiggery-pokery in the Government's handling of the issue.
Can the Minister give us some idea of the Government's thinking on the involvement of the political parties in nominating representatives to the Committee of the Regions? If it were thought desirable for the political breakdown to be either by region or nationally, can we be assured that the right of individual political parties to put forward nominees will not be pre-empted and that the Government do not intend to choose representatives from a selected list of representatives, or their own favoured candidates from individual political parties? Those are some of the detailed questions to which I should like the Minister to respond and to which the House has a right to expect answers.
One of the most intriguing and perhaps most mysterious aspects of the debate on the Committee of the Regions is what happened on the night the House came to its historic conclusion, and the involvement of the Scottish National party and the Welsh nationalists. The SNP found itself rather lonely in its support of the Government. The Minister says that it will not regret it, but I have a faint feeling that some members have already regretted it. It was a fateful evening. The Minister lost. despite the new friends that he had gained and, of course, the nationalist parties lost out. We are told that there was a deal. The Minister did not tell us, and I do not know whether he will tell us now—

Mr. Garel-Jones: indicated dissent.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister says no, but that could mean that he is not going to tell us or that there was no deal. However, apparently there was a deal.
The deal for Wales—or the alleged deal for Wales—received much more coverage, seemed much more explicit and had strings attached. It apparently meant that the Welsh nationalist party was to vote in support of the Government from here on in, on 10 o'clock motions, closure motions and the rest. It was to support the Government on everything, although I give credit to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) for putting his name to amendment No. 2—that was perhaps the one dispensation that the party was allowed as part of the great deal, which was to ensure that there would be one Plaid Cymru representative on the delegation to the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that by voting for Second Reading we showed our support for the principle of Maastricht and our enthusiasm to see the Bill on the statute book to ensure an end to uncertainty for industry in Wales? It is therefore not surprising that we vote for closure motions in order to make progress, but we are certainly not in favour of the social chapter exclusion because we want the social chapter provisions to apply equally in Wales and the rest of Europe.

Mr. Robertson: On the face of it, that sounds terribly reasonable, although the hon. Gentleman is sitting beside colleagues who have a very different point of view. I admit that, to the outside world, what he says seems reasonably plausible, but it does not bear examination against what he and his colleagues have been saying in Wales. They did a deal. They were not going to decide whether a closure motion should be moved after the appropriate period or after the shortest period in which the Government could obtain a closure motion from the Chairman of Ways and Means. The deal apparently meant a slavish devotion to whatever the Government Whip said—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I shall give way in a moment. I am still replying to the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party, but I shall give way to other Members, because everyone wants a chance to speak.

Mr. Ron Davies: He is the Chief Whip.

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend informs me that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) is the Chief Whip, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain. It is not a matter of an assertion or allegation, because we have done the calculation. The Welsh nationalists supported the Government in 52 of the 59 votes on the Bill. The Minister says that that is very good; they will get a gold star from the Government. Clearly their actions were part and parcel of the deal.
I shall come to the Scottish nationalists' deal in a moment. It is a "now you see it, now you don't" deal, but we should have to measure the enthusiasm for Maastricht displayed by the Welsh nationalists, which has led them to vote with the Government 52 times out of 59, against the enthusiasm shown by the SNP—

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: No, I have not moved on yet. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that I have not yet come to the Scottish nationalists, but am still dealing with the Welsh

nationalists. The deal led the Welsh nationalist party to vote with the Government in 52 out of 59 Divisions. It certainly did not lead the Scottish nationalists to do the same. If the argument is that that was not part of the deal, and was more to do with the Welsh nationalists' devotion to Maastricht, the outside world will not be convinced by it.

Mr. leuan Wyn Jones: The hon. Gentleman has done us a great honour. Obviously he has looked at our voting record and thought about it carefully in order to present his argument. May I ask him two relevant questions? First, will he tell the House how many of those votes took place before the amendment on the Committee of the Regions and how many afterwards? He can tell the House whether there was any change in the pattern of our voting. The second question is: how does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his support for the Bill with the fact that he has voted 38 times with the Tory rebels who want to wreck it?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Robertson: Let us deal with those two questions. The first was about votes before and after the amendment, and I believe that we will find that the Welsh nationalist party's devotion to the speedy implementation of Maastricht was concentrated in the period after the amendment was debated. I accept that there will have been some occasions before—

Mr. Wigley: Look at the figures.

Mr. Robertson: We have looked at the figures; it happened on 52 out of 59 occasions. The nationalists north of the border are all telling us that they routinely vote against the Government, although there are occasions on which their devotion to Maastricht overwhelms their devotion to attacking the Government, but we have been told by the Welsh nationalists that the norm is to vote with the Government.

Mr. Wigley: On Maastricht.

Mr. Robertson: On Maastricht and everything to do with it, irrespective of the merits of the individual case, and of whether it makes sense for such votes to take place at 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning. The Welsh nationalists are tied, and we are supposed to believe that that is due to their enduring commitment to the treaty and not to any of the fine print of the deal that they allegedly did.

Mr. Phil Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: Dear, oh dear. The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) is making a fleeting appearance. The only other occasion on which I remember his being present for any of the previous debates was when he represented the physical evidence to the House that the Government would not move a 10 o'clock motion one evening. We shall wait a little longer for the hon. Gentleman's pearls of wisdom.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, having referred directly to me?

Mr. Robertson: I referred directly to the hon. Gentleman only in order to tell him that I would not allow him to intervene at the moment. I know that he usually


jumps in at every opportunity when he is mentioned, but I am still attempting to answer the intervention by the Chief Whip of the Welsh nationalist party, who asked me why the Labour party had voted 38 times with the Tory rebels against the Government. We voted against the Government when we believed that the argument against the Government was right. If some Conservative Members cared to join us in the Division Lobby when we had protested at the brevity of some of the debates on key issues, if some Conservative Members wanted to vote with us when the Government sought to carry debates on in the middle of the night, and if some Conservative Members tried to ensure that debates took place at a proper time, they joined us. That displayed divisions on the Government side, not a lack of unity on the Opposition side.
We will continue to vote on issues on their merits. I give notice that if the Government seek to move the 10 o'clock motion this evening we shall consider that unreasonable, in view of the nature and importance of the subjects to be debated. We are not in favour of considering those important issues in the early hours of tomorrow morning.

Mr. Wigley: They want to wreck the Bill.

Mr. Robertson: We are not attempting to wreck anything. Proper sensible debate on the Bill can easily be accommodated within the normal hours of the House.
It is time for me to ask the Minister of State some questions about the alleged deal which received publicity in Wales and which led the Welsh nationalists to support the Government in voting against the principle that the composition of the Committee of the Regions should be made of locally elected councillors. It is important to establish against what the two nationalist parties voted and what they supported on that occasion. They voted in support of the Minister of State, who repeatedly said that he was not willing to accept the principle that the British delegation to the European Committee of the Regions should be made up exclusively of local authority councillors. He said he wanted it to comprise also Government appointees, such as business men. He treated us to the traditional phraseology. He wanted to keep some places for the business men who are jam-packed into every quango that the Conservatives establish. We now have many quangos taking power away from Parliament and local government. That is what the Minister said and that is for what the two nationalist parties voted.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is about to launch into his traditional debate with the Scottish National party and I do not want to intrude on that. It is difficult to know precisely what Opposition Members, such as the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who wants to know about the deal, have in mind, because they jump up and down as if a deal was something dirty and dishonourable.
We intend to consult precisely the people of whom the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) is speaking. We intend to consult, to listen and to come to arrangements. We intend to come to what are normally called deals.

Mr. Robertson: If that was the beginning and end of it, I would not have to indulge in the part of the speech that

I am now making. But we know that there was an attempted deal between the nationalist parties and the Government over a limited aspect of the Government's package. The Government had no intention of consulting anybody except the nationalist parties about the composition of the Committee of the Regions and, had they won the vote that night, the Committee of the Regions would have been jam-packed full of the Government's usual old cronies, friends, partners and business associates.
But it would appear that there was a deal, though not a deal between Her Majesty's Government and local authority associations representing local councillors throughout the land. There was apparently a limited deal on offer to certain political parties at a national level. Some of those who were willing to do such deals are sitting in the House right now. They are willing to give away the principle of non-elected people on the Committee of the Regions in return for some squalid backstairs deal by which their positions would be protected. If the world is to know what the deal was all about and what they got, let the Minister speak now and tell everybody.

Mr. Garel-Jones: There is a point that the hon. Gentleman clearly has not understood since we started discussing the Committee of the Regions. I hope that I made it perfectly clear in Committee that far from being opposed to local government representatives sitting on the Committee of the Regions, we thought that was a likely, indeed probable, event. I also made it clear in Committee that, while we were opposed to tying ourselves down exclusively to elected councillors, we were open to the proposition that the substantial majority of representatives would be local government councillors.
I assure the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)— I have never felt it necessary to apologise for what I believe is one of the finer characteristics of the House—that discussions between the Opposition and the Government take place every day through the usual channels. That enables the House to work. So I do not apologise in any way for discussions that we may have had with the nationalist parties. I assure him that the discussions with the Welsh nationalist party were predicated on the understanding that all the representatives would be from local government, and that caused us no difficulty whatever.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Before we proceed, may I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief. The Minister's contribution was more like a speech.

Mr. Robertson: Yes, indeed it was, but it did not say anything—that is the difference. The Minister's contribution was interesting at the end. The Minister of State, who is in charge of the Bill, said that an agreement to base the Committee of the Regions on local government councillors was expected only among the Welsh nationalists. The Minister of State will no doubt say that he did not take part in the other deal—I wonder who did.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am much too prudent to try to intervene on discussions within Scotland, which I left to other of my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Robertson: The Minister is here today representing Her Majesty's Government and all those who participated in the behind-the-scenes deals. I make a clear distinction


between the normal discussions that take place between the parties in the House on the running of the House. Last week, the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) and I discussed whether her name should appear on amendment No. 2, and we reached agreement on that—

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: That was a discussion.

Mr. Robertson: Yes, that was a discussion—consultation took place—[HON. MEMBERS: "A deal] There is a difference—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have lots of contributions, particularly from a sedentary position. We must listen to one person at a time.

Mr. Robertson: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: If the hon. Gentleman does not like deals, will he condemn the deal that was taking place between the deputy Chief Whip of the Labour party and the Conservative rebels outside the Chamber just after the statement? Once they saw that they were being watched, they went into a huddle, but initially they were bang in the middle of the Lobby.

Mr. Robertson: Dear, dear, the hon. Lady may not know about huddles, but they are not evidence of deals. We are discussing a conspiracy between two of the minority parties—the two separatist parties—and a unionist Government in order to defeat an Opposition amendment that would have established the important —one might say fundamental—principle that the Committee of the Regions should be composed uniquely of representatives from local government.
There is a clear distinction to be made. There was a conspiracy to defeat the Opposition amendment and support the Government, thereby supporting the Government's view that the Committee could comprise —as the Minister now says—a substantial majority of local government councillors, but could also include others, as the Minister repeatedly made clear throughout our debates, and again today. There was no question of the Minister's accepting the argument that all the representatives would be elected councillors, because there were to have been Government appointees—the words "business man" were continually on the Minister's lips. The question before us that night was whether the Government should have the right to choose from their cronies and not solely from elected councillors. The conspiracy to defeat our amendment was designed to deny the democratic right of local government councillors to represent this country on the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is dancing on a pin. I do not know what the figures are now, but the last time that we discussed the matter, the only countries that had nominated their members to sit on the Committee of the Regions had chosen what I still regard as the more sensible option—to have the opportunity of making some nominations who were not local government representatives. For example, I was lobbied by representatives of the island communities, which was a matter we were considering until the hon. Gentleman's unwise amendment was carried.

Mr. Robertson: As someone who was born on an island, I can educate the Minister. Every island in the United

Kingdom is represented by locally elected councillors, who have a mandate, backing and authority. If the Minister is saying that selections would be made from isolated communities, he confirms our worst suspicions. The Minister advanced that argument in the earlier debate and, despite the new friends that he had gained, his argument was overwhelmingly defeated and the principle was accepted by the Committee of the House of Commons —as it will be again this evening—that the Committee of the Regions should be composed of those with a democratic mandate.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that the amendment was carried with the support of many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. However, island communities in Britain have an association of their own and they thought it sufficiently important and attractive to come to see me at the Foreign Office to suggest that island communities might have a representative on the Committee of the Regions. Those were the sort of representation for which we might have used any additional places, but, alas, our proposal was defeated. I do not regard it as a huge matter and, as the amendment was carried, we now accept the will of the Committee of the House. The hon. Gentleman must not work himself up into a lather.

Mr. Robertson: I am not working myself up into a lather. The Committee felt obliged to press the amendment to a vote and it voted against what the Minister said because he did not advance a reasoned view about a broad coverage of representation in the Committee of the Regions. The Minister specifically ruled out representatives with a local government mandate—an elected democratic mandate. He said that he wanted to retain places for, among others, business men. The amendment was carried as a principled objection to the Government's maintaining exactly the same selection process as they use in so many quangos. The Minister was not outvoted by the Opposition alone, but lost substantial numbers of friends among Conservative Members.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Before any other hon. Members intervene or the debate continues, I must remind the House that the purpose of the debate is not to conduct an historical review of how we have arrived at this stage, but to debate the merits or otherwise of the new clause currently under consideration.

Mr. Salmond: I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guidance. I do not want to add to the problems of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has a considerable number already. He mentioned conspiracy twice. Does he remember that the last time that word was mentioned in relation to the legislation was by his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould[) in the early hours a week ago last Thursday? He alleged that there was a conspiracy between the hon. Member for Hamilton and the Minister of State, with a view to saving the Government's skin on the referendum vote that morning. Was that a conspiracy?

Madam Deputy Speaker: I call Mr. Robertson and ask him to bear in mind my ruling.

Mr. Robertson: Any warning that you give, Madam Deputy Speaker, must be borne very much in mind, and I


shall narrowly restrict my answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond). There was no conspiracy involved: the Labour party voted for its policy on a referendum—a policy which was established a long time ago—and the Government voted for their policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan are entirely wrong to assume or allege that there was any conspiracy between Front-Bench teams or anyone else on the referendum. The party positions had been established many months in advance.
We are talking about a clear-cut conspiracy relating to new clause 42. Had the Government got their way, and had the Welsh and Scottish nationalists been able to help the Government to victory on the matter, the Government would have won an entitlement to choose anyone they wanted from the British population to represent this country on the Committee of the Regions. We are being told—but not by the Minister of the Crown, who completely denies all knowledge of one of the deals—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already issued a warning to the hon. Gentleman, whose speech is now becoming not only irrelevant, but tediously repetitious.

Mr. Robertson: I am sorry if it appears that way to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to select new vocabulary and, in order to stay within your level of tolerance, I shall resist the temptation to give way to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) who, during the past few days, has been prayed in aid as a great supporter of the social chapter. However, that would be to pre-empt a later debate.
There was undoubtedly an attempt to preserve the Government's right to select their cronies and the two nationalist parties were part of that.
The House is entitled to some explanation of the detail that lies behind the new clause, especially what the people of Wales were told about the deal with the Welsh nationalists. We were told that Plaid Cymru is to have one of the three or perhaps four seats on the delegation to the Committee of the Regions.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Four.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Member for Southend, East says four. Perhaps he knows more than others about the deal.
The Welsh nationalist party obtained only 9 per cent. of the votes in Wales at the last general election, whereas the Labour party obtained more than 50 per cent. How can the deal possibly be defended on the basis of arithmetic or equity? The Liberal Democrat party, with 15 per cent. of parliamentary votes at the last election, is apparently to get one seat on the delegation of four. The real question is how that criterion is to be extended to the rest of the country, or is the Minister of State about to tell us that he knows nothing about that either?

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Robertson: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman and I do not wish to test the tolerance of the Chair again.
I should like the Minister, not the Welsh nationalist party, which was only one participant in the deal, and can deliver nothing at all, to tell the House of Commons precisely what has been agreed for Wales, what is the breakdown between the parties and who is to select the party nominees—will it be the parties themselves or will they have to draw up a sanitised list from which the Secretary of State for Wales or his possible successor, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, will choose who will represent the party in the Committee of the Regions? That issue goes to the very heart of the debate and the new clause.
Before the end of the debate, will the Minister seek guidance from his officials about what the Secretary of State for Scotland was up to? Our only evidence of a deal with the Scottish National party—all they got in return for voting with the Government, apart from being cuffed around the head by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland in subsequent Question Times—was a letter addressed to the hon. Member for Moray saying that the Secretary of State for Scotland would try for six seats on the European Committee of the Regions, with no precise breakdown.
We in Scotland have received no further details of that deal. The hon. Member for Southend, East, who is usually knowledgeable about these matters and who is himself close to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan, as they share authoritative views that I read regularly in the Glasgow Herald, says that there is no deal. However, following the fiasco of that vote, the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan wrote in Scotland on Sunday that there was a written agreement. He has written to every Scottish nationalist councillor in Scotland saying that there is a deal. In Scotland on Sunday he said that the deal stood, irrespective of the fate of amendment No. 28. Of course, new clause 42 is the technical rewording of amendment No. 28. Irrespective of the fate of amendment No. 28, the deal with the SNP stood, but what is the deal? The SNP will not tell us what the deal is or any detail of it, so I am asking the Minister to tell us in all honesty.
We are the House of Commons debating the Bill on Report and the right hon. Gentleman is the Minister in charge of the Bill. Will he tell me, the House and the people of Scotland whether there is a deal and, if there is a deal, what it is? What did the Secretary of State for Scotland offer the SNP that encouraged SNP Members to go into the Lobby that night and vote against an amendment that proposed that the Committee of the Regions should be drawn only from councillors? I shall give way to the Minister if he will tell me what the deal was.

Mr. Garel-Jones: When the hon. Gentleman's own party stops playing silly games with the Maastricht Bill and enters into discussions, as it has not yet done, he will find that the Government are open to listening to his point of view and making any arrangements that emerge from the discussions. Then no doubt, late, last and stumbling at the back of the queue as ever, he may discover what previous discussions have led to.

Mr. Robertson: If the carrot dangled before the Labour party is that if we get into dealing with the Minister we shall do as well as the SNP has done, it is not a very encouraging offer.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Robertson: I am not giving the Minister a second bite of the carrot. Were it his good fortune to live in Scotland, he would know that if there were a deal we should have heard about it, because the only way that the SNP could possibly get off the hook that it has been hanging on would be to tell the people of Scotland what the deal was.
The Welsh nationalists have trumpeted their apparent deal loud and long enough, but we have heard not a whisper from the SNP, for the very good and simple reason—the Minister's silence confirms it—that there was no deal. He enticed them through the Lobby and they got nothing out of it at all. He enticed them to vote against the principle of local government representatives on the Committee—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman sufficient rope. Now he must come back to the point.

Mr. Robertson: You gave me the rope, Madam Deputy Speaker, but it was the SNP which was hanged in the process.
The House has the opportunity to hear what the deal was that persuaded the SNP to do it. We are hearing tiny fragments of the deal. We are debating the Government's new clause enshrining the principle that was forced on them in the House of Commons by one of the key votes in the parliamentary proceedings on the Maastricht Bill. This is our opportunity to hear about deals, if there are any.
The conspiracy appears to have come to absolutely nothing. The principle that we asked the House of Commons to enshrine carried the day without the assistance of the nationalists. This evening, the Minister claims ignorance of one deal and takes pride in another, although he is incapable of explaining what it is all about.
I return to the beginning of my speech by saying that I welcome new clause 42, which enshrines an important principle not just for the House but for democracy in Britain and for a European Committee of the Regions which will have, especially in the British delegation, a democratic legitimacy that will strengthen its worth.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The debate on the Committee of the Regions has been one of the most pathetic examples of the House of Commons trying to pretend that something had importance when it had none whatsoever. I hope that the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), who has spoken with much vigour and enthusiasm throughout these debates, would tell the people of Britain one simple fact: the Committee of the Regions will have no power to do anything at all; it will have no budget and it will not even have its own secretariat, but will have to share its secretariat with an existing function of the EC.
The fact that the poor old Welsh nationalists, for whom I have always had high regard, appear transformed into pathetic Lobby fodder ever since the strange deal was done makes me wonder about the intelligence—

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister has been interrupting all the time, holding up our discussions and wasting time, so I shall allow him to intervene only once.

Mr. Garel-Jones: If the Committee of the Regions is, as my hon. Friend says, a matter of such little consequence, why did he find it of sufficient importance to wish to vote with the Opposition on this matter?

Sir Teddy Taylor: This, I am afraid, is rather typical of what we have had from the Minister of State. It is pathetic. When we try to make a point, he asks if we are agreeing with the Labour party or trying to help socialism. I hope that he will not interrupt me again, and I will come back to that specific point. I can remember an occasion when we were talking about the membership of the court and I asked what was the point of giving the court all these powers if there was no way of implementing them, at which point the Minister of State jumped up and asked me if I wanted to give more powers to the European Community. That is the level of debate that we have had from him.
I can only say, as someone who has been here for 28 years and who has no influence on anything at all, that, having been present at many debates, while I have a high regard for the speeches made by the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell), which have been well informed, comprehensive and sincere, the Minister of State's participation in the debates has been a disgrace to democracy and to the House of Commons.
5 pm
My point is a simple one. If we are sending people to organisations, of which the European Parliament is a good example, they should be elected. They should have the support of the people of Britain. If we are sending people to any kind of organisation which takes all power away from democracy, we should send elected people who know what they are about, especially if the organisation or committee has the power to spend money. If it has no power to spend money on its organisation, people should appreciate that we are setting up a committee which is almost identical to what they had in the Soviet Union, a huge organisation of people coming from all over the Soviet Union. They sat there in their countless rows and passed resolutions, and other people always came from the Government to say that the representatives were being most helpful and that they appreciated all the wonderful advice that they received from the Supreme Soviet. It was a pathetic organisation.
On the issue of the Committee of the Regions, we should make it clear to the people of Britain what is happening to our country. Democracy is dying, and their opinions on things will no longer matter. We are transferring power to boards, councils and commissions. People's views will be worthless and useless. This is typical of the Committee of the Regions, and I would again challenge the Minister of State, who is such a clever person. I talked about power. Has this committee any power at all? No, it has not. Does the Minister know of any power? What power does it have to do anything at all? A Minister of State who knows everything that there is to know about the European Community should be jumping to the Dispatch Box and saying that he has misled the House and that the committee has power to do this, that and the other. But it has none at all.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I confirm that the Committee of the Regions is an advisory body; but giving advice is not an


improper thing to do. It is what hon. Members do constantly. They give the Government advice and the benefit of their opinion. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: There is a substantial difference if one is making decisions on the structure of the economy and on interest rates, on the welfare of our people, on whether they can have jobs and a reasonable standard of living, on things like the agricultural policy—which is entirely outside the scope of this debate—spending vast amounts of money, as much as £250 million a week, on dumping and destroying food surpluses. People should have some control over these things. But instead of giving the people power we are setting up a whole string of worthless, useless organisations, of which the Committee of the Regions is the perfect example.
Once we have decided to set up a body which has no power and no budget, that body will be able to spend lots of money on organising itself, perhaps holding seminars or going to some of these wonderful hotels throughout Europe for discussions, or paying official visits to Wales, exclaiming how wonderful Europe and Wales are and having a grand time. While democracy is dying, they will be spending the people's money on these worthless, useless Euro-junkets, telling people that they are doing a marvellous job.
As someone who has always admired minority parties, I am not in any way upset about the Scottish nationalists. They were effective for only a short time. Their healthy independence disappeared after what seemed to be a strange, anonymous semi-deal—I very much doubt if there was any deal at all. But something substantial has happened with the Welsh nationalists and those who were decent, honourable people have suddenly changed into pathetic Lobby fodder for the Government. It is appalling. And all they have received is the pledge that they can appoint one splendid person who will be able to go to this worthless Committee of the Regions and be able to exchange flags and cakes and invite people to come over to Wales and have a grand time.
Because the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, have decided to have representatives on this worthless, useless organisation, we must have lots of Welshmen, lots of Scotsmen and lots of goodness knows what. I wonder how Northern Ireland fares in all this. We must ask ourselves whether this is true democracy. If we are to have an organisation which is interested in talking about itself and putting forward resolutions, what about the rest of the country? Have the Government thrown out the baby with the bath water and forgotten other parts of the United Kingdom?
I am in rather a special position because, having been born in Scotland, I represented a Scottish constituency and I now represent an English one. The Government must remember that, while they are wheeling and dealing on these amendments about silly organisations which have no power, they are responsible for the whole of the United Kingdom. When they offer Welsh nationalists a special deal and they, in turn, say how wonderful it is and do what they are told ever thereafter—because they choose to do it —the Government appear to have forgotten their responsibilities to places like Tilbury, which I passed through today, Southend-on-Sea, Birmingham and

Yorkshire. But this seems not to matter. They only want to persuade the minority parties to vote for them and so they feel that they can chuck in any numbers that they like.
I find that appalling. It would be infinitely better to have no Committee of the Regions at all and for the Government to save Community money by not sending representatives. If, however, they must go, it is only fair that England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—a place with special problems and outstanding representation in the House—should have fair and reasonable representation which takes into account the population and the problems of the place and not just how many people they can shove into particular Lobbies.
I have been here for 28 years. I have tried not to engage in filibustering or wasting time and I have probably just annoyed people sometimes by the things that I have said, but I feel that there is occasionally a need for troublesome individuals to tell the Government that some Back-Bench Members are being rather sickened by some of the things that are done. The Government obviously want to get the treaty through. They know that the Opposition Front Bench are on their side. But some of the pathetic deals and arrangements that they are making are contrary to democracy, and we would be much better not getting involved at all.
I should like to say a few words about another new clause to which I put my name, one in the name of the Scottish National party, in which representatives of all the parties have come together to say that there is a case for asking the people their view on some things which are rather important. I am not saying that this new clause and what it proposes are the ideal arrangement for a referendum, but I welcome very much indeed the fact that the Scottish National party, for which I have always had a high regard although I have disagreed with its views fundamentally and completely, accepts that there is a case for people giving their views on something. This call for a consultative referendum—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not considering a referendum in this debate.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am well aware of that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just trying to say that I appreciate the fact that the Scottish National party has accepted that there is a case for people expressing their views. Long may they hold these views, and let them go from strength to strength in that particular regard.
I repeat: the committee is useless, worthless and ludicrous, and it will cost the taxpayers a great deal. [Interruption.] I am appalled that Labour party spokesmen should laugh at this: it will cost our people a great deal of money. They should know that many people in their constituencies are miserable, unemployed and homeless, paying too much tax and having their houses seized—much of this because we are flinging money at the European enterprise. Their attitude to public spending, therefore, is an affront. We have only to remember that the average family pays an extra £18 a week for food and that £500 million a week is spent on the common agricultural policy. There is huge, wasteful expenditure and extravagance, and it is appalling that we are going ahead with a treaty that will cost the people of Britain a great deal more.
I have two simple questions for the Minister. First, what estimate has he made of the cost of the Committee of


the Regions? Whatever estimate he has made will, I am sure, turn out to be an underestimate, not because Governments like to underestimate, but because European projects always turn out to cost much more than we expect them to.
I am sure that the Government have made some sort of estimate; Governments do not agree to these things without doing that first. We want to know everything: will the committee hold conferences and seminars and go on nice little visits to Wales to tell the Welsh nationalists that they are splendid people? So let the Government tell the House, perhaps in Hansard, what their estimate is. Then, in six years' time, say, if the wretched treaty has been passed, my hon. Friends will be able to ask Ministers whether the figures were accurate. This will be an educational process for the people of Britain.

Mr. Tony Marlow: Far from finding out what it will cost to run the Committee of the Regions, I am having great difficulty in finding out the purpose of the committee. Looking at the treaty, I have yet to discover what that purpose is. Unless we know the purpose, how can we assess how much money should be spent on it.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend should be well aware that it has no purpose, beyond allowing a large number of people from all over Europe—

Mr. leuan Wyn Jones (Ynys Môn): And Wales.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Certainly. Then they will pass resolutions. It will be almost exactly like the Supreme Soviet, to which people came from all over Russia and passed resolutions. Then people came from the Soviet Government saying, "We want to thank you for your splendid suggestions." I assure my friends from Wales that Ministers, perhaps even from the Foreign Office, will go to the committee and say, "What wonderful advice you have given us. You are giving us progressive and forward-looking ideas. We are more than grateful for them. Please carry on with your good work for Europe and the people of Wales."
This will be, as I say, a pathetic, useless, worthless organisation with no budget of its own—apart from the ability to spend lots of money on itself.
I am sure that the Government will be able to give me information on my second question too. What will people be paid for attending the Committee of the Regions? Will they get nothing, as those who serve on voluntary bodies receive? It would be nice to know. I have not the slightest idea as yet. I am sure that the Minister knows everything about this, and it would be helpful if he told us how much representatives will be paid. Will they receive only an allowance, and, if so, what kind of allowance? Will they be given an allowance for hotels and travel?

Mr. Garel-Jones: Shocking!

Sir Teddy Taylor: I cannot understand why the Minister says that, because it matters to every taxpayer in his constituency and in mine.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not regard it as particularly shocking that if someone goes to Brussels to serve on the Committee of the Regions he might be allowed to stay in a modest hotel. My hon. Friend clearly regards it as wholly reprehensible that the taxpayer should fund that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I would have no objection if people who were sent to this ridiculous and pathetic public relations exercise had to stay in modest hotels. I am not arguing about that. I am just asking the Minister what t he cost will be and how much people will be paid. Will they stay in modest hotels or in big hotels? Will they travel first or second class?
I have found time and again—I hope that Foreign Office Ministers will bear this in mind—that when Ministers come here to give us assurances or make pledges those assurances turn out to be a load of codswallop. When we agreed to the treaty of Rome, we were told that it was merely a question of freeing trade in Europe—it committed us to nothing. It did not turn out like that.
I believe that our previous, wonderful Prime Minister was partly misled about the Single European Act. She told me that it would merely allow majority voting to be used to encourage free trade ideas. I am sure that she now feels let down, because things have not worked Out quite like that. I can remember our present splendid Prime Minister telling us that the exchange rate mechanism would bring us growth and stability. Instead, it brought us unemployment, misery and horrendous costs.
I ask the Minister of State, who has nothing but contempt for the points that I am making, to bear in mind the fact that Ministers—not him, but others—have given us pledges and guarantees in the past which have unfortunately turned out to be largely worthless, to such an extent that our democracy is fading away.

Mr. Marlow: As my hon. Friend is doubtless aware, the Committee of the Regions will adopt its rules of procedure and submit them for approval to the Council, acting unanimously. What it will do, how it will do it, where it will do it and any other aspects of the running of the committee are thus subject to the vote of our right hon. Friend the Minister of State. So if my hon. Friend has any questions for him, I am sure that he will receive a full and complete answer today.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Many organisations have grand ideas and like to talk about them—the women's institute for one —and no doubt they fulfil worthwhile roles. I am always interested to hear what they have to say. In this case, it is pretended that we are setting up some form of regional government along democratic lines. As my hon. Friend points out, it is bogus nonsense.
The Government's conduct in this matter has been terrible. They have persuaded the Welsh nationalists to throw away the healthy independence that minority parties should always have. The Government have also let down the rest of the country by giving special pledges to Scotland and Wales, just because they want the representatives of those countries to vote for measures which they know are a load of rubbish.
This has been a horrible debate. If the Minister of State chooses to disregard all the opinions that I have expressed, I hope that he will at least answer my two questions. If he gives us the figures, in five years' time when he, or perhaps the hon. Member for Hamilton, is Prime Minister, we can ask them questions to find out whether perhaps once again the Minister has been misguided and has underestimated the total cost of this worthless Euro-nonsense.

Mrs. Ewing: It is always interesting to follow the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor), the more so since he managed to insult and compliment the SNP within the space of a few sentences. I have a high regard for his attitude to the European Community, in the sense that he at least has been consistent over many decades in political life. When I was a junior member of the body politic in Scotland, he was campaigning against the European Community, but I think that it would be more honest of him to admit that his argument is not really against the Committee of the Regions: it is against the whole concept of the EC. Therein lies the great difference between his attitude and that of the three nationalist parties.
Ever since the hon. Gentleman left Scotland—some people would say that he was sent from Scotland—he has become more and more an adherent of the sovereignty of the Palace of Westminster. Our contention is that sovereignty lies with the people and we will do everything to forward their right to exercise that sovereignty. Again, I do not think that that element is reconcilable between the hon. Gentleman and me.
Some hon. Members have said that they do not believe that the Committee of the Regions will have a great influence on what happens within Europe. Like my party, I believe that it will have a major influence on structural funds. That is of great interest to people in Scotland, particularly when they consider the arguments about article 1 and article 5b, which are important to many of our fragile economic communities, certainly in the north of Scotland. We must bear in mind the fact that eventually the Committee of the Regions will influence the European Parliament and the Commission on aspects of economic life. Therefore, we must not downgrade it.
I hear rumblings already from the Labour Front Bench. Under no circumstances do we see the Committee of the Regions as a substitute for a Scottish parliament or a Welsh parliament, whereby we would have direct representation in the Council of Ministers and in the Commission; indeed, we would thereby increase our representation in the European Parliament. Until we are in a position to deliver parliaments for Scotland and for Wales—the Labour party is in a shaky position here because, given its votes at the last election, it could deliver such parliaments—we will do everything that we can to enhance the role of our nations within the European Community, where we see our future.

Mr. Marlow: Does the hon. Lady see the Committee of the Regions as a means of bypassing the United Kingdom Parliament? Does she see it as a European device for loosening the cohesion within the United Kingdom and being able to deal directly with the individual parts of the United Kingdom?

Mrs. Ewing: As the hon. Gentleman and I serve on the Select Committee on European Legislation, he should know well my strong views about an independent Scotland within the European Community. I do not see the Committee of the Regions offering us the facility to dial Europe direct and bypass Westminster. Sometimes I wish it could. But until such time as we are an independent nation, I see the Committee of the Regions as part of a decentralising process within the European Community, whereby the views of the regions of Scotland and the regions of Wales—we are not saying that Scotland and Wales are regions—can be expressed and whereby they can

co-operate with people from other countries and try to influence the decision-making process, just as we come here, as elected Members, to represent not only the views of our constituents, which are of paramount importance, but the principles set out in our election manifestos.
I am conscious, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you do not want a historical review—

Mr. Salmond: Or a hysterical review.

Mrs. Ewing: —or even a hysterical review of how we have reached the new clause. However, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) resorted to some unhappy hyperbole in his attack on myself and on my hon. Friends in the SNP and Plaid Cymru. If he wants an explanation of the discussions and consultations which took place, he need look no further than amendment (b) which we tabled to his amendment No. 28 and which he rejected. I will not reiterate all the arguments that I used in that debate, but it was clear that no hon. Member on these Benches was rejecting the principle of elected councillors throughout Scotland and Wales being representatives on the Committee of the Regions.
We were trying to ensure that due cognisance was taken of the mechanisms of nomination and appointment and the mechanism to ensure plurality within our democratic political societies. That amendment was rejected by the Labour Front Bench, which is now agreeing with the new clause. The hon. Member for Hamilton did not deal with the key principles which we regard as underpinning membership of the Committee of the Regions. He did not talk about the mechanisms for nomination or appointment, or for ensuring plurality within our democratic society. I wonder why? Is it because, on 5 March, at the executive meeting of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, a decision was taken on the appointment of three members of the Committee of the Regions and three substitutes? I ask hon. Members to bear that decision in mind when thinking about the plurality of our democratic system.
The president of COSLA, Charles Gray of Strathclyde, is to be a member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour"] The senior vice president, Rosemary McKenna of Cumbernauld and Kilsyth, is to be a member. [HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."] The vice president, Andrew Tulley of Ettrick and Lauderdale, who is an independent, is also to be appointed. The three alternates were named; they are all members of the Labour party.

Mr. Salmond: Name them.

Mrs. Ewing: I am happy to name them. They are Bob Middleton, the convenor of Grampian regional council —[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; Baillie Jean McFadden of Glasgow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."]; and Keith Geddes of Lothian—[HON. MEMBERS: "Labour."] They are all members of the Labour party. Can the hon. Member for Hamilton say whether that is Labour party policy in Scotland on membership of the Committee of the Regions?

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Lady is reading from a report of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which is not the Labour party in Scotland. The question is whether local government and councillors should decide how the representatives are to be chosen. The hon. Lady must not have been listening, because those are precisely the points that I put to the Minister earlier. Had her party


got its way in supporting the Government, there might have been no councillors representing Scotland or any other part of the United Kingdom because the Minister wanted to keep representation to the Government's cronies—business men and friends of the Government. That is what the Government wanted and what the hon. Lady voted for.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Gentleman started digging a hole when he rose earlier and attacked hon. Members on these Benches. He is continuing to dig that hole. He should learn a lesson and stop digging so furiously. I am not reading from a report from the Scottish Constitutional Convention; I am reading from the executive minutes of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities held on 5 March this year. The hon. Gentleman has not done his homework. It is strange that there has been no communication from COSLA to the hon. Gentleman to let him know that, out of six potential members of the Committee of the Regions, COSLA has nominated five Labour members.
In regard to the amendments which were discussed earlier, I wish to make it plain to the House and to anyone else that there was no attempt by the SNP to prevent the appointment of elected councillors to the Committee of the Regions. We attempted to ensure plurality and consultation to prevent the Secretary of State or other parties from appointing placemen. We wanted plurality because there is no point in arguing about democracy if there is to be a system of appointments by the patronage of the Front Benches. We in Scotland must take account of the results in general and local elections. We hope that Labour will eventually realise that we live in a pluralistic society and that it does not have a monopoly on local government in Scotland.
In conclusion, I re-emphasise—

Mr. George Robertson: I hope that the hon. Lady's conclusion will answer the question that has been repeatedly asked—what is the deal? She and her colleagues voted against a Labour amendment which would have left the Government with no flexibility about who it could appoint for the United Kingdom delegation. The amendment stated that delegates had to be locally elected councillors. The Government said that they wanted to reserve places for their cronies. What did the SNP get for voting with the Government against the principle of our amendment? The people of Scotland want to know that. Does the hon. Lady propose to tell us?

Mrs. Ewing: I have become increasingly depressed by the hon. Gentleman because he has not done his homework. He should look again at amendment (b) which we tabled to his amendment. That was the basis of our consultation and negotiations and it guaranteed plurality among elected councillors in the committee. The hon. Gentleman's amendment allowed the Secretary of State to continue to have the facility to appoint whom he wanted. The hon. Gentleman was allowing the Government to choose and the Conservatives are more likely to choose Brian Meek than Campbell Christie or Rosemary McKenna. Labour's Front-Bench spokesmen were allowing power to reside with the Secretary of State for Scotland. Our amendment (b) fully allowed for accountability and the plurality of our democratic system.
The hon. Member for Hamilton spoke about deals. He is always involved in deals and negotiations. It seems that consultation is acceptable to Labour only when it is involved. If other people dare to discuss with other parties in the House how they feel about issues, somehow or other it is wrong. There were discussions with the Labour party, but it refused to accept the principles that we were propounding.
Labour should not adopt such a pious attitude. Every hon. Member has the right to discuss and negotiate with those in authority to try to obtain the best terms for his constituents and his country. A great deal of hot air has been expended.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Ewing: I shall do so briefly.

Mr. Gallie: The hon. Lady said that the comments by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson) depressed her. Is she depressed by the fact that the hon. Gentleman continually refers to the business community in derogatory terms? Does he not see business men as wealth and job creators who have a part to play in Scotland's well being and perhaps in the committee?

Mrs. Ewing: I do not propose to enter into a debate on an intervention that was aimed at the Labour party. However, many people in our communities have many ideas about the expenditure of structural funds, for example, and they include trade unionists as well as business people. This weekend I had the pleasure of meeting representatives of the Scottish Trades Union Congress as they passed through my constituency in the march for jobs and democracy. They are doing a fine job. The churches and voluntary organisations should have an input about how our communities develop and how money is spent.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) rightly says, business men and church people are all terribly nice-and do good work for everyone. However, the Government's new clause says that representatives will be councillors only, which means that business men and church people are chucked out. I hope that my hon. Friend is aware of what he has been told to vote for. He will be voting for councillors only and excluding business men and church people.

Mrs. Ewing: The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) raised this issue. The councillors that I know in my area are very much in touch with business men, trade unions, churches and voluntary organisations and take serious account of opinions that are expressed to them.
It is unfortunate that the debate about the Committee of the Regions has been marred by attempts to score party political points. We see it as an important sphere of influence for people who represent the diverse areas of Scotland and Wales and the opinions there. We hope that the committee will operate in a European context for the benefit of our two nations as well as all the other nations of the Community.

Sir Richard Body: The hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was not very persuasive. She conceded that there were consultations between her party and the usual channels in Government. There is nothing wrong with that, but the outcome was that the hon. Lady and her hon. Friends voted with the


Government. I suspect that there was some reason for her and her colleagues deciding to give carte blanche to the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales to make all the nominations to the Committee of the Regions. I would be rather surprised if the hon. Lady and her colleagues did not obtain some concession in return for a generous offer to the Government.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), on accepting the principle that we adopted in Committee. It was right for the Government to concede that, and wise of my right hon. Friend to back track a little.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) asked whether parish councillors would be eligible to sit on the committee. That is an important question, but I doubt that the answer is in the affirmative, because a local authority is legally defined. I stand to be corrected about that, as on most things, but I think that I am right in saying that a parish council is not a judicially defined legal authority—certainly not in the English courts, although it may be different elsewhere.
There is no difficulty in finding good people to stand for parish councils. In Lincolnshire and in most other counties, people of real ability are willing to sit on parish councils. They may be managing directors, prominent farmers, senior solicitors or senior trade union officials who do not have the time to sit on local authorities but are willing to give time to parish councils. Parish councils contain a great deal of talent upon which to draw, and I shall be disappointed if they are excluded from the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Marlow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, inasmuch as we need a Committee of the Regions, many people who would be valuable participants engage in many other activities? It is those other activities which would make them so good for the committee, but they do not have a great deal of time. However, they would have time to serve on a parish council near their home, although they would not have the time to serve on a county council or a metropolitan authority, which would require much greater commitment.

Sir Richard Body: That must be the case, but a great deal depends on what the Committee of the Regions will do. I shall return to that matter.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that he had contemplated representatives from the islands if the original provision had gone through unamended. I suppose that he had in mind the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, for example. Perhaps he would confirm that.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Or Gibraltar.

Sir Richard Body: My hon. Friend takes the word out of mouth. I was going to mention Gibraltar. It is not quite an island, but those of us who have had the opportunity to go there in recent months know that there are strong feelings there about the way that it has been treated within the European Community.
It insists that it is in the Community and that it is trying to be communautaire, yet as soon as the single market came into effect on 1 January this year, the borders were closed by the Spanish Government. When I was there a

week or two after that closure, it was taking people from both sides four hours to cross the border. That is in conflict with all that was intended by the single market.
Gibraltar is saying that it cannot raise its voice. It has no voice in the House of Commons or the European Parliament. Therefore, might it not have a place on the Committee of the Regions?
Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Minister would be good enough to tell me whether there is any prospect of Gibraltar having some voice in Brussels. At the moment, it is dependent on the Foreign Office. Whether the Foreign Office is willing to express forcefully and effectively the views of Gibraltar is not for me to say. If it advocates the case for Gibraltar as it advocates the case for this country, I may wonder about what is being said on behalf of Gibraltar.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I compliment my hon. Friend on raising that vital point about Gibraltar not being represented anywhere on any body. Could not the Government, if they wanted to, allocate Gibraltar seats on this funny European Parliament? That subject may be going wide of the new clause, but the Government could, if they wanted to, do something for Gibraltar through the additional seats that have not been parcelled out to particular places but that we must parcel out ourselves.

Sir Richard Body: Indeed. The Government of Gibraltar have made that suggestion to Her Majesty's Government, and are awaiting a reply.
I wonder what France is doing over Reunion, Guadaloupe and Martinique. There is an analogy. It would be interesting to hear from my right hon. Friend what the French Government are proposing to do in selecting representatives for the Committee of the Regions.
As we know, metropolitan France extends across oceans and includes places that are often much poorer than mainland France, and worthy of representation on any Committee of the Regions, but still just as much part of the European Community as Lyon, Paris or Marseilles. I hope that my right hon. Friend will give us some news of what is happening on that score. If France is giving any representation on the Committee of the Regions to those faraway places, we should be doing the same for Gibraltar and, even closer to home, the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The case of France and Reunion is interesting, but an even more interesting example is the case of Ceuta and Melilla, the Spanish areas in Africa, where the people have votes to the European Parliament. Those African areas can be represented on the new Committee of the Regions. Is it not diabolical that areas in Africa that are Spanish can be represented on the Committee, but Gibraltar, which has been in the European Community since 1973—long before Spain ever joined—will be denied such representation?

Sir Richard Body: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The excuse given is that those two parts of Africa are parts of Spain, just as much as Barcelona, while Gibraltar is virtually independent and is not part of the United Kingdom.
We ought to hear a little more from my right hon. Friend the Minister about how seats are being parcelled


out in the other countries. It is obvious, whether or not there is a deal, that Scotland and Wales will have proportionately more than Northern Ireland and England.

Mr. Marlow: Why?

Sir Richard Body: I also ask why. I do not want to provoke the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing), but we should recall why those differences exist. Northern Ireland always used to have fewer Members of Parliament because of Stormont. Not until after Stormont was abolished and Enoch Powell and others mounted a long campaign was representation in Northern Ireland extended to match that of England.
In the meanwhile, Wales and Scotland remained over-represented, because it was more difficult to get around constituencies there. That is no longer the case. The hon. Member for Moray has an attractive constituency, which I visited the other day. I got there much more quickly than I would have got to Boston in my constituency. One can fly to Inverness and get from there to Moray quickly. It takes me about three hours to get to Boston.
I well remember, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) represented Glasgow, Cathcart, standing waiting with him at the Members' Entrance. I was amazed to hear that he would get to Glasgow in two hours, when it would take me three hours to get to Boston.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: We have spoken about deals. Is it not a fact that, rather than a campaign waged by Enoch Powell, it was a deal done in Parliament to keep a Government in position for a little while longer that resulted in extra seats for Northern Ireland?

Sir Richard Body: I remember that. The hon. Gentleman is right. A deal was done. It was a necessary deal, and it gave Northern Ireland representation, as it was entitled to, on the same basis as that for England. That only reinforces my point. Northern Ireland and England are treated the same, and rightly so, but I do not see why Scotland and Wales should be treated more favourably than Northern Ireland, particularly when it comes to the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman might not find it so difficult to understand if, instead of representing the sort of constituency that he represents with such distinction, he represented a constituency such as mine, which, although it has a mere 32,000 electors—less than half the national average—covers an area of 2,800 square miles. Not even the miraculous modern transport systems will allow one to get around that in one day.

Sir Richard Body: I have travelled from Inverness to Scourie, almost to the far end of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, at a tremendous speed because the roads were quite empty. I had a delightful holiday when I got there, and I have envied him his constituency ever since. If he would like to exchange his constituency—but it is not for me to make the offer.
I emphasise the point, because the other countries in the Community will not resort to regional weighting. I doubt whether some parts of France will have greater

representation than others. I doubt whether the länder in Germany will allow some to have more than others, or whether the northern Italians will allow southern Italians, about whom they have strong feelings at the moment, to have more representation. Throughout the rest of the Community, representation will be proportionate to population.
I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to confirm that, because we should by now know what proposals other member countries are making.

Mr. Marlow: Another important point that my hon. Friend is probably about to come to is the fact that the United Kingdom has an allocation of 24 members for the Committee of the Regions, but Belgium, which I understand has one fifth of the population of the United Kingdom, has an allocation of 12 members—one fifth of the size, half the number. If there is to be a Committee of the Regions—many of us are not completely happy with the concept—why should each Belgian be two and a half times as heavily represented as each member of the United Kingdom?

Sir Richard Body: Poor old England will come off worst of all. That is bound to be the case, because we shall be giving proportionately more to Scotland and Wales. They will he much the same as the Belgians, whereas we in England will have to have a reduced number to enable that to come about.
That is of some importance, because I believe that we shall hear much more of the regions with regard to England. Those of us who have argued about the effect that the single market will have upon our economy have repeatedly said that we shall see a steady drift of industry away from all parts of the United Kingdom, including England and the south-east, to what has been called the golden triangle or what is nowadays being called the red banana—that banana-shaped area based on the Rhine, to which industry is now being attracted. We shall see the de-industrialisation of England continue and unemployment continuing at a high level.
Whether or not we adopt the social chapter, we shall find it more difficult to attract industry from the mainland of Europe. All parts of England will suffer the regional malaise that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have suffered for decades. That being so, it is wrong that England should be less well represented than those other regions of Europe which will be similarly affected and which may be outside the golden triangle or the red banana. Therefore, I regret the way in which the Government have done a deal with Opposition Members.

Sir R. Moate: I have listened most carefully, but I am puzzled about why it should be of any concern to my hon. Friend, me or anyone else whether the English regions have X-plus or X-minus members on the Committee of the Regions. I have listened to many debates on the subject, and I have heard no evidence that such a committee will be anything more than a talking shop, having virtually no influence on anything. What difference does it make to us whether we have 100 members or one.

Sir Richard Body: It is convenient that my hon. Friend should say that, because it enables me to go on to make what was my last point. That is that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East are remarkably naive


about the European Community. Both should remember what was said in the early 1970s about what was then called the consultative assembly.

Sir Roger Moate: indicated assent.

Sir Richard Body: I am glad to see my hon. Friend nodding his head. That assembly is now called the European Parliament. Of course, it is still not quite a Parliament, but it will get there given the chance.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: This is the second Chamber.

Sir Richard Body: Yes indeed.
In 1996, we are due to have another intergovernmental conference, and all those institutions will acquire more powers and greater strength. That will include the Committee of the Regions. That is why I believe that the committee will be extremely important.
To use a rather tired old phrase, the Committee of the Regions is just the thin end of the wedge, just as the consultative assembly was the thin end of the wedge way back in the 1950s, when it was first established by the treaty of Rome.
Those of us who were federalists in those days—I must confess that I was—always knew that we would never achieve our objective in one move; it had to be done gradually. One reason why I departed from the federalist camp and ceased to be a federalist was that I felt that it was deceptive. It was always assumed that we would never get where we wanted in one move. Over the years we have seen a steady move towards federalism and the Committee of the Regions is one part of that move, just as the consultative assembly was to evolve into the supreme Parliament of western Europe.

Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend might be right: this committee might be the thin end of the wedge. That is the explanation of the support give to it, understandably, by all the nationalist parties. But if so, is that not even more reason to oppose the concept of only elected councillors being selected for membership of this regional council? Is it not that kind of thing that is designed to confer legitimacy; to build up the pretensions of such a committee? If my hon. Friend is fearful of it being the thin end of the wedge, surely, contrary to the way in which he introduced his speech, he should oppose the new clause and allow us to retreat to the position of nominated business men and other worthy people serving on the committee.

Sir Richard Body: That is a persuasive intervention. I might have to reconsider how I shall vote. I do not wish any democratic legitimacy to be accorded to any institution of the Community. However, I must concede that I am attracted by the idea of regionalism. I say that with great regret, because I do not wish the powers or status of this House to be diminished in any way.
But once we have ratified Maastricht, we shall have taken a step which will have so lowered the position of this House that we shall need to consider deeply which way we go from there. We shall have to have some kind of regional assemblies. We cannot have any true democracy or any sense of public accountability if more and more power is to go to the European Parliament, as it will after 1996 and

the next intergovernmental conference. At that point, we shall have to recognise that we shall have to have a large number of regional assemblies, and the Committee of the Regions will have to be considerably beefed up after 1996
Anyone who has studied the development of the Community knows perfectly well that this is just the first step. There is no strong regional authority to begin with. Powers are not given to the Committee of the Regions immediately. The idea is simply introduced to get people used to it. People are then elected to it who start to enjoy the journeys to Brussels, or wherever it may be, and being paid accordingly. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East was rather light-hearted about the cost—

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Minister of State was light-hearted, not me.

Sir Richard Body: That is much more likely.
We now know that the average Member of the European Parliament costs us £500,000 a year. Perhaps a member of the Committee of the Regions will cost £100,000 a year. It is not unreasonable to assume that their total emoluments and expenses will be one fifth. However, I must not digress into the area of expenses.

Mr. Marlow: Does that £500,000 include the cost of interpreters and the running costs of the institution as well as a Member's expenses and emoluments?

Sir Richard Body: No, the cost of the European Parliament is much more than that. The expert on that subject is sitting on the other side of the House. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) knows that it has always been a great deal more than that. The pantechnicons moving the papers around the capitals cost more than that.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will not continue with that theme. A passing reference is one thing, but total consideration of that point would be out of order.

6 pm

Sir Richard Body: I was tempted, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I must resist temptation.
I had made my point—that this is the beginning, starting with a form of regional authorities. I concede that, after Maastricht, they may be necessary—but I shall continue to oppose the treaty, because I do not want us to go that route. If we are to move towards a federal structure —as we are, whatever we may choose to call it—we will need committees established across the whole Community to represent each region. Equally, the regions themselves will need their own institutions.
If one is attracted by the argument for regionalism, as I know some Opposition Members are, it could be argued also that the sooner we recognise that case the better, and that that is the only democratic route for the Community to take. That is an attractive argument and, if the treaty is duly ratified, will probably be the route that I shall take. However, I shall much regret having to change my mind and to concede that the House will lose many more of its powers than it will anyway lose under the treaty.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In the debate on the Committee of the Regions in Committee, the Ulster Unionist parliamentary party voted in favour of elected local


authority representatives being appointed to the committee. It is only right to place on record our appreciation for the new clause tabled by the Government this afternoon.
Several references have been made to deals made at the Committee stage between the Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the English Conservatives—all kinds of deals. Those of us from Northern Ireland—I note that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is in his place—are beginning to think, given that so many deals have been made by the Scottish and Welsh nationalists with the Government, that there will be hardly any seats left on the Committee of the Regions for Northern Ireland.
Unlike Scottish and Welsh nationalists, we are not open to deals on the Maastricht agreement because it means something much more important than just a few seats on the Committee of the Regions. It will mean surrendering many of the powers of our national Parliament, a common European defence and security policy, a common European currency and a central bank. Those major issues are not negotiable with Ulster Unionists just to secure a few seats on the Committee of the Regions.
Nonetheless, as there is to be that committee, and as the Government have decided that elected representatives shall serve on it, we must put down our marker so that Northern Ireland is fairly represented. What does the Minister consider to be fair representation for Northern Ireland? He has done deals with parties in other parts of the United Kingdom and we would like to know what is deemed to be fair representation for Northern Ireland. It is often argued that Northern Ireland's various political parties should be represented. As the Social Democratic and Labour party receives only 20 or 21 per cent. of votes in Northern Ireland, or 25 per cent. in a European election, Northern Ireland would need four seats on the Committee of the Regions for the SDLP to secure even one seat. If Northern Ireland representation is reduced to three seats, I fear that the SDLP will not be represented at all. I want to know whether Northern Ireland is to have four full members and four alternate members appointed to the committee.
As to the United Kingdom's overall representation on the committee, that should not be on a pro rata basis according to the United Kingdom's population, but should relate to those regions that receive moneys from the European regional development fund. That would naturally restrict the size of England's representation, but Northern Ireland would, pro rata, have more representation because it is an area of first priority for European development funding.
The problem for Northern Ireland in appointing elected representatives to the Committee of the Regions is that it does not have elected local government. Although Northern Ireland has 26 district councils, their powers are limited to the lifting of the bins once a week, the provision of cemeteries, and certain small tourist projects. Otherwise, all the major local government services of Northern Ireland are controlled by the English Secretary of State and his English Ministers, who come to Stormont once a week to govern us. Those Ministers have full powers in respect of roads, sewerage, water, and planning.

Mr. Mallon: It might be wise at this point for the right hon. Gentleman to state why local government in Northern Ireland does not have the power that people would like it to have. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman

will explain that it is due to the way in which his party abused power when it had it, to the extent that it had to be removed. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if there is a Committee of the Regions, it will be a good thing for the north of Ireland, in that whoever is appointed from local government might be subject to outside influences that could be reflected in the councils on which they serve —especially Belfast city council, which is dominated by the right hon. Gentleman's party?

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would not want me to be tempted down that path. I shall stick to the facts. Major local government services in Northern Ireland are controlled by this Parliament and not by elected Northern Ireland councillors. Education, health, social services, roads, planning, housing, sewerage and water are all controlled by people who were not elected in Northern Ireland, yet who exercise total power in relation to those services.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh has no say in those matters and nor have his district councillors. Regrettably, the hon. Gentleman wants to keep the nationalist people of Northern Ireland in a position in which they have no say in the Province's local government affairs. We have local elections in Northern Ireland at the moment and I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland will have heard the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh remark that he does not want them to have real power.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Surely the right hon. Gentleman does not want to mislead the House and to go on record as saying that the Ulster Unionist party dominates the city hall, when it accounts for fewer than one third of the council's members. No party dominates the city hall. It is important to retrieve proper power and for the people of Northern Ireland to elect their own representatives.

Mr. Taylor: As I said earlier, I do not imagine that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, want me to go down that path. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) is correct. I believe that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh was being a little flippant in the way in which he made his case during his intervention.
In Northern Ireland, the main government services that benefit from the European regional development fund are controlled not by elected councillors in Northern Ireland but by the Northern Ireland Office and its Ministers. Therefore, elected representatives from the district councils representing Northern Ireland on the Committee of the Regions will not have the same important role to play as elected councillors from elsewhere in the United Kingdom—in England, Scotland and Wales—unless we get real democratic local government powers in Northern Ireland.
We must transfer back to the locally elected representatives the real issues that benefit from European regional development funding—in other words, roads, sewerage and water must be transferred back to the elected councillors—so that they can represent the people on the Committee of the Regions in Brussels and can argue their corner to obtain European regional development funding for these major infrastructure projects.

Mr. Wigley: If I understand correctly. the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that representatives from Northern Ireland will not have as much clout as


representatives from England, Scotland and Wales. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the argument put forward in Brussels recently that the United Kingdom representatives will not have as much clout as representatives from Germany or Spain? The representatives of those countries are representing elected Governments; our councillors must compete with, perhaps, former Prime Ministers of Bavaria in arguing the case that the right hon. Gentleman puts forward. Is not that a case for an elected assembly or parliament in Northern Ireland to give even stronger clout to those who go to Brussels to argue the case?

Mr. Taylor: That is an entirely different subject. We are talking about the Committee of the Regions and debating a proposal that the membership of that committee should be made up of elected councillors, elected members of local authorities. That is the issue.
I am saying that those who are elected to district councils in Northern Ireland have very limited powers compared with those elected to councils elsewhere in the United Kingdom. The European regional development fund, to which the Committee of the Regions is related, gives major grants for structural and environmental projects in which district councils in Northern Ireland have little or no say.
For example, a constituent came to me at the weekend to complain about a pothole on the Cairnshill road in Castlereagh borough. I cannot go to the district councillors to ask for the pothole to be filled, because they are not allowed to fill in the pothole. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, they would discriminate in how they filled it up. He said that they are not capable of filling up a pothole—that is his argument—so we are left with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland as the only person with the right to decide whether that pothole is to be filled. That is a ludicrous situation which must be rectified. Until it is, the district councils who represent Northern Ireland on the Committee of the Regions will not have the same status and responsibilities as those from elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) mentioned the question of expenses for the members of this new Committee of the Regions. I suspect that it is going to be a committee somewhat similar in its role to that of the Economic and Social Committee in Brussels. The members of that committee—which represents the social partners in the trade unions, business and industry—receive expenses, and rightly so; they have to travel to Brussels and stay overnight there and it is an expensive city. The Minister should give the House some guidance on this—obviously he cannot tell us exactly what the allowances and expenses will he for members of the new Committee of the Regions— and tell us what the present levels of travelling expenses and attendance allowances are for members of the Economic and Social Committee; we will then be able to draw our own conclusions because the allowances will be somewhat similar for the Committee of the Regions.
Finally, I come to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Southend, East—that the Committee of the Regions is simply a consultative committee: powerless and, to a certain extent, a lot of nonsense. That is true. We already have an elected European assembly at Strasbourg—now

renamed the European Parliament—with elected representatives from the 12 countries of the European Community. Within that Parliament, there is the European Regional Policy Committee, consisting of elected members of the European Parliament from all 12 Community countries, which meets on a regular basis at least once a month, and elected representatives from Northern Ireland, England, Scotland, Wales and elsewhere in the Community deal with regional policies. The committee is consulted by the - European Commission and the Council of Ministers and expresses the views of the elected representatives of the regions on specific regional policies. Will the Minister explain adequately—he failed to do so in Committee—what gap the committee will fill in the consultative procedure, and in the whole evolution of regional policy in the Community, which is not already filled by elected representatives in the European Parliament who sit on the Regional Policy Committee?

Sir Roger Moate: The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) concluded on a very powerful note indeed. He demonstrated that there is no answer that the Minister can give. The answer is clear: this committee is unnecessary. The point that the right hon. Member made about the flaw in the logic of the argument as applied to Northern Ireland is equally a strong argument, but I think that we can apply that logic to many of the features of the argument about whether we have locally elected councillors and whether that is an appropriate qualification.
I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) when he congratulated the Government on having accepted the will of the House and suggested that we should support the new clause. I do not believe that the House should accept it. I find it extremely difficult. I have heard very few arguments from my right hon. Friend the Minister with which I have agreed, but when he argued against this proposition in Committee I agreed with him. He was very persuasive and powerful. Now I have great difficulty when he comes before the House and asks me to accept the opposite argument. I do not change as readily as that. He was persuasive before and I accepted his previous argument. I think that the House, too, should accept that logic.

Mr. Garel-Jones: What I was seeking to do in Committee, when my hon. Friend and other hon. Members intervened, was demonstrate the choices and dilemmas that lay before us. For example, I said that I thought that England ought to be entitled to 20 seats, but that, on the basis of some of the bids that we had received from other parts of the country, England would get none at all. I said that that was a ludicrous position, and that a balance had to be struck.
I see the point that my hon. Friend is heading towards. As an English Member, I would not want to see—anxious as I am to see that Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland are properly represented—England squeezed down to the point where it would worry him and me.

Sir Roger Moate: I am not sure that I agree with my right hon. Friend on that point, or whether it matters terribly if England is squeezed down. I accepted the Government's powerful argument that there was no logic in having elected councillors appointed and that we should


have worthy, powerful and influential people from all parts of the Community sitting on this committee—if there had to be such a committee. Now my right hon. Friend is asking the House to say that that argument no longer applies and that representatives have to be elected councillors.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Let me make it clear to my hon. Friend that the Government would still prefer to retain the flexibility for this and future Governments to allow representatives from the business community, as my hon. Friend and others have suggested, to be part of our team on the Committee of the Regions. That is the position which the Government would have preferred. The House chose to prefer a system relying entirely on elected councillors, and the Government must bow to the will of the House.

Sir Roger Moate: I understand that point, but I disagree with it. I challenge the suggestion that, somehow, the will of the House is expressed by a single vote in Committee. It is a novel proposition. Do the Government intend to accept it in future? If they are defeated in Committee upstairs or on the Floor of the House, will they say, "The House has spoken; that is the will of the House; we accept it."? Will they make no effort to overturn that decision on Report, or in another place?
The will of the House, as we understand it, is expressed ultimately in the legislation that we enact, which involves a number of stages. The will of the House is not expressed simply in Committee. What my right hon. Friend should have done was to say, "All right, we accept that we were defeated in Committee, but we shall reverse that decision on Report." We have such an opportunity now.

Mr. Garel-Jones: If my hon. Friend were able—I must admit that my efforts to do so failed—to persuade some of my right hon. and hon. Friends to reverse their view and support what I believe is my hon. Friend's view, which is also the Government's view, I am sure that the Government would seek to do what he suggests. I am afraid, however, that my advocacy failed. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has any good news for me.

Sir Roger Moate: I have seldom known my right hon. Friend to be in such a flexible mood: to be so anxious to accept a majority verdict and not to challenge it. Alas, I can offer my right hon. Friend no more than my own vote. No doubt he and I will be in the Lobby together to vote down the new clause. That, at least, is the logic of the argument. Further efforts should have been made to overturn the Committee's verdict.
I object in principle to the concept that appointment to the Committee of the Regions—its members will be appointed, for there is no new mechanism, as has been pointed out, for electing them—should be restricted to elected councillors. They do not even have to represent the region from which they come. Although I am delighted that there will be no regional elections, the horrible logic of all this is that if there is to be a Committee of the Regions and only locally elected councillors are to serve upon it, they ought to be elected to that committee. Such a proposition would be welcomed by the nationalist parties, or the minority parties, or the regional parties, however they may choose to be described. However, that is no part of the proposal, and I am pleased about that.
What I object to, in all logic, is the idea that election to a local council is, somehow, a relevant and necessary qualification for service on an appointed committee, an advisory and consultative committee, of this sort. What magic divinity is conferred upon a district councillor from, shall we say, the excellent borough council of Swale in my constituency that justifies his appointment as the British representative for a region that is called, for the sake of argument, the south-east of England—Kent, Essex, Surrey, Sussex, and perhaps Greater London?
The appointment of a Conservative Swale borough councillor, no matter how superb he might be, will not be accepted by Labour councillors in Essex, just because that man has been elected to Swale borough council. It does not mean anything.
One is elected to represent one's parish council, district council or constituency. That confers some rights within the area, but it does no more than that. It confers neither the status nor the credibility to represent the United Kingdom, or a large region of the United Kingdom, in Brussels. There is no logic, there is no sense, in that argument.

Mr. Gallie: I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says. I agree also with the comments of the Minister, who has to deal with the practicalities of the issue. If I may add to my hon. Friend's argument, I find it difficult to understand how local authority representatives, who frequently complain of the burdens of their local authority involvement, will be able to take on their shoulders this weighty exercise of travelling regularly to Brussels to take part in the deliberations of the Committee of the Regions. Can my hon. Friend comment?

Sir Roger Moate: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I suspect that it will not be difficult to find local authority representatives who will be willing to go to Brussels. It will be a sacrifice for them, but I suspect that there will be some compensation. Their expenses will not be too inadequate. The influence and the status that will be conferred on them will be considerable. People will listen to their words. I suspect that, somehow, they will manage to tear themselves away from their borough council duties in order to spend time elsewhere. I do not think that that will be a problem.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend again, but his remarks provide me with the opportunity to respond to a question that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) and other hon. Members asked regarding expenses and costs. Members of the Committee of the Regions receive no salary. They receive a per diem of approximately £100 a day, plus their travelling expenses. As for the costs of the Committee of the Regions, members of the committee will use the services of the existing secretariat. They will also use the buildings that the Economic and Social Committee occupies. There will be some additional administrative and personnel expenses, but we do not expect them to be too substantial.

Sir Roger Moate: I am sure that the House will be most grateful for what my right hon. Friend has said about the position at the beginning. Can he tell us that that state of affairs will continue for the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years? I


just wonder what the rewards might be in the years to come. The point is taken, however. I do not intend to labour the expenses point.
My right hon. Friend will find that locally elected councillors feel that they have gained considerable influence and stature as a result of going to Brussels to sit on the Committee of the Regions—influence and stature which, I suggest, is far beyond what is justified by the powers that they exercise. The real danger is that this committee has no responsibility but great influence. Its position is one of total irresponsibility—the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. The committee will have no responsibility, but, due to its great status, it will be able to lecture the Strasbourg assembly, Brussels and us and urge us to spend, spend and spend.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend talks about the committee's status. Will its members have some title or designation? Will they be known as regional councillors? Will they have initials after their name? A more substantial point is that we have got it the wrong way round. We ought to know what this organisation is doing before we establish it. If it is not doing housing, education, social services and those things that are done by locally elected councillors, what on earth is the point of sending locally elected councillors to sit on that committee?

Sir Roger Moate: My hon. Friend makes his point in his own way. It was dealt with effectively by the right hon. Member for Strangford, who asked the same fundamental question: what on earth will this body be doing that is not already being done by properly elected Parliaments? I have, with regret, to include the Strasbourg Parliament, which I wish was not directly elected. The direct election factor to the Strasbourg Parliament conferred legitimacy on that body. It is a dangerous trend. It was the conferment of democratically elected status on the European Parliament that enhanced that concept of the European federal state. Therefore, I worry about the thin end of the wedge in this case—the conferment of legitimacy on the Committee of the Regions representatives.
My final point is linked to the one that I have just made. I object strongly to the Committee of the Regions being there at all. I accept that we are debating the qualifications of the people who are to be appointed to the committee, but the status of the Committee of the Regions will be deliberately enhanced by the fact that its representatives are elected. The two arguments are inseparable. It is right, therefore, to argue in this debate strongly against the Committee of the Regions and to vote down the new clause.
I am surprised that a Conservative Government and Conservative Back Benchers should argue in favour of something called a Committee of the Regions. I never believed that I would hear such an argument. Why? First, because the Conservative party and this Government have always fundamentally opposed the concept of regional government. I am not talking about Scotland or Wales, but I am certainly talking about England. We have opposed the proposals, especially those made by the Liberal party, for elected regions. We have opposed them for a variety of good reasons, but we are now accepting, almost automatically as a good thing, the Committee of

the Regions for the whole of the European Community and for our country. That is very dangerous, so why are we accepting it?
6.30 pm
Secondly, is it not the case that we are opposed to other bodies bypassing Westminster? Without a shadow of a doubt, the Committee of the Regions is designed to do just that. It is in its very nature. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The Scottish nationalists say, "Hear, hear"—we do not have to prove the point because their support does that. The committee is designed to bypass Westminster, yet the Conservative Government are going along with it. Perhaps the committee will be merely an empty talking shop and we are setting up an empty consultative body. Even so, we should still oppose it, but we are apparently saying that it is a good thing and such a good thing that only elected councillors should sit on it.
It could be argued that we do not believe in the committee at all and that it is merely the price that we have to pay for the Maastricht treaty. When I suggested that to the Minister of State in Committee, he said that that was not so and that we believe in it. He said that it was a good thing and that we welcome it. Perhaps it is something in which my right hon. Friend believes, which the rest of the party does not like very much, but with which it has to go along for the sake of the deal in Europe. That would at least be consistent with the rest of the argument over Maastricht: most of the party does not like it, but it is the price that we have to pay to settle the big deal for which the Minister of State is waging a valiant and powerful intellectual fight by himself.
The Committee of the Regions is alien to the Conservative party's usual philosophy, and I object to it strongly. It is not a matter of doing things for the regions —there are other mechanisms for that through national parliaments and elected bodies. The committee is nonsense and rubbish. The new clause may tidy it up, but that merely makes it tidier rubbish which we should not accept.
I should dearly like to believe that we could have cut the committee out of the treaty. We cannot, but we can reject the new clause and eliminate the pretensions that the committee might gain by having elected councillors. We shall not then confer on this consultative body a legitimacy which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston said, would represent the thin edge of the wedge, which would ultimately lead to regional government underpinning the federalist ambitions of many hon. Members and many in Europe.

Mr. Maclennan: The contributions of the hon. Members for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) and for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) have revealed a number of inconsistencies among the Adullamites of the Conservative Members below the Gangway. It has been interesting to hear them contradict each other about the potential importance of the Committee of the Regions.
I have no doubt that the committee can become extremely important; I have less doubt about advocating that it should do so. As the European union develops, it will become more natural for parts of that continent-wide political organisation to find common interests being expressed by different parts of Europe which are not always reflected in the historic national communities which are represented directly through the Council of Ministers. Indeed, there is already more in common, for


example, between the fishermen of Brittany and Jutland and of my constituency in the north of Scotland than between the fishing interests expressed by national Governments represented in Brussels in the Council of Ministers when they have sought to determine the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Gallie: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify how the Committee of the Regions could assist the fishermen to whom he refers, given the powers that it has?

Mr. Maclennan: I believe that it will help to focus on the practical consequences of proposals that are being made by, for example, the European Commission for regulations or directives which may affect their interests and which are not necessarily priorities for national Governments but which are priorities for the affected sectoral and local interests.
One has only to consider the debate about whether the highlands and islands of Scotland should be included in the objective 1 status for the purposes of assistance with structural development to recognise that there are, even now, issues of the greatest importance which it is difficult to get on to the agenda of the Council of Ministers because they are of regional but not national interest. Where there are allies to be found at regional level, the case for getting them on to the agenda of the Council of Ministers can be enormously strengthened. I hope that the Committee of the Regions will grow not only in influence but in authority and real power.

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is always courteous.
If Scotland, for example, is to be treated as a region, does he accept that its representatives would not necessarily agree that the highlands should be the only part of Scotland to fall into the category to which he referred? Other parts of Scotland may be just as disadvantaged as the highlands, so that there may not be a unanimous view among the Scottish group.

Mr. Maclennan: It would be presumptious of me to look into that crystal ball, although I believe that the highlands and islands' special needs and problems have, on the whole, been recognised across the political parties and throughout Scotland, if not always by central Government at Westminster. I think it probable—I go no further than that—that elected representatives drawn from local authorities would always understand the peculiar needs of the geographical half of Scotland which is the highlands and islands. That is only speculative, and I am dealing with a more institutional point.
Should the committee have an important role? The Adullamite's view is that anything which enhances the effectiveness of the Community is not to be welcomed. Clearly, a body that draws its legitimacy in part from the fact that its membership, although appointed by the Government, has legitimate democratic roots is to that extent strengthened. Indeed, it is entirely consistent with the view of the hon. Member for Faversham who, although he has not exercised power over these matters in two decades, has nevertheless sought to exercise influence and is listened to with respect because his principles have been shining clearly during that time.
I hope that the committee will derive benefit from having a membership drawn from people who have subjected themselves to the arbitrament of election. That

gives people a degree of authority in affairs of state, a right to be listened to with some respect, which those who have simply been plucked out of the list of the great and the good by the Government of the day cannot possibly hope to enjoy.
Let me draw an example from close to home. At the general election I was opposed in Caithness and Sutherland by a Conservative candidate who had not stood for election before, certainly not to Parliament, and, if my memory does not mislead me, had not stood in a local government election either. Within a matter of months the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that if the northern unit of the Highland health board was to be established by the wish of those currently involved in running it, he had it in mind to appoint my Conservative opponent as its chairman; no doubt he was on the Secretary of State's list of the great and the good.
That is an issue of patronage. That is how the Government have proceeded for more than 12 years, and it causes some resentment. I have a great regard for my Conservative opponent, who is a man of sense in many matters, and a man of high public spirit—but he has not succeeded in being elected. Many people who have been involved in running hospital affairs in my constituency and in the rest of Scotland have stood for election and have been elected. It seems to me perverse that those people should all have been bypassed in favour of somebody who has not been elected, and it also undermines that person's authority. It does not strengthen the unit that is being set up.
I cite that local example in support of the case for appointing representatives from among those who have been elected, as the new clause specifies. The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor)—

Sir Roger Moate: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to his example of the health authority? We can all think of similar arguments from other parts of the United Kingdom. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that he would not object so strongly to someone's being appointed to such a post if that person had been officially elected to any body? Would he prefer such a person to be a business man, for example, or to be someone else who had been taken from the community and appointed to chair the health authority? Rather than drawing an analogy with a defeated candidate, is it not fairer to compare an elected councillor with another leading, but non-elected, person in the community?

Mr. Maclennan: I do not think that people have to be either councillors or business men. Many of the most effective councillors I know are extremely effective business men in their own right. The field would not be seriously narrowed.

Mr. Garel-Jones: May I reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate)? The option that the Government would have preferred would have allowed for a substantial number of elected local government representatives, but we should not have been alone in the Community in our wish to keep a proportion of the representation so as to enable business men and environmentalists, for example, and representatives of other interests to serve on the Committee of the Regions. Other countries have so ordered their affairs.
I do not believe that there is a great issue of principle at stake here; it is a matter of judgment. Our judgment was


that it was not the wisest course to tie down future British Governments and restrict them solely to elected local government representatives.

Mr. Maclennan: I simply disagree with the Government's initial analysis. I may be revealing my hand when I say that I want the Committee of the Regions to develop, and that if it developed into a second chamber of the European Parliament I should not find that unwelcome. I have always taken the view that a Committee of the Regions could well develop into a senate of the European Parliament. That idea is in the back of my mind, and that is the direction in which I wish to see the committee develop, so naturally I should like it to start its life on something as close as possible to a democratic basis. Clearly it will not start on a wholly democratic basis because the Government will choose this country's representatives, so the democratic element could be introduced only at a second stage.
If we could start to invent a constitution for the United Kingdom, few people would dream up anything like the House of Lords, an upper House in which people who have not been subject to election legislate for us. In Europe we are at the beginning of that process and we have the opportunity to avoid creating unaccountable, unelected institutions which inevitably speak with less authority than they would enjoy if they had been elected.
Notwithstanding the rather peculiar way in which the Government have been led to introduce new clause 42, and the strange deals that they struck in Committee with the most unlikely people, I freely admit that I think that some progress has been made. I should like to think that we shall move towards a system whereby the Committee of the Regions will be established by either direct or indirect elections, to give it authority, so that the highlands and islands of Scotland can speak directly to, say, Sicily about the problems of remoteness and how the European Community's legislative process should take those problems into account in reaching its conclusions.
It is no use saying that that can all be ironed out at national level. No doubt Sicily will find Rome as unresponsive to its problems of remoteness from the centre as the highlands and islands find London.

Mr. John D. Taylor: I find it difficult to follow what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the highlands and islands of Scotland speaking directly within the context of the European Community to people from the island of Sicily. Surely that already happens. Elected members from Sicily and from Scotland—including Scottish nationalists—serve on the regional policy committee of the European Parliament. Why is it wrong that elected representatives from Sicily and from Scotland should speak together on the regional committee of the European Parliament yet right that they should do so on the Committee of the Regions?

Sir Roger Moate: Because that would be the hon. Gentleman's second chamber.

Mr. Maclennan: Exactly. It would reinforce the effectiveness of those representatives' voice. I do not see the issue as an either/or choice. It is certainly desirable that members of the European Parliament from the highlands

should talk to members of the European Parliament from Sicily, but how much more effective it would be if those interests were reinforced at another level of the Community legislative process, by the direct contact that I foresee in the new development. I believe that there is considerable enthusiasm for the idea, at least in the highlands and islands of Scotland. There had already been contact between elected councillors, who had meetings with their opposite numbers long before the Committee of the Regions was dreamt up, and sought to promote within the European Community the interests of what were called the peripheral regions.
That is entirely welcome to me, because most of the tendencies of the Community in its first few years—possibly for its first decade—were centralising. There was a failure to recognise that the needs of those beyond the golden triangle must be consciously protected by the legislative processes of the Community and that something more than mere lip service to those interests was required if the Community was not to be seen as a malign influence on the development of our country.
The new clause is a welcome measure. It does not go anything like far enough towards the establishment of a powerful part of a legislative process, but it will be useful.

Mr. Marlow: Local councillors are responsible for various functions, such as education, social services, housing and planning. They are responsible for others, but those are the most important. Europe is not responsible for housing, education, social services or planning. If the detested Committee of the Regions is to exist, why send councillors to it?

Mr. Maclennan: That is a good question to address to the Government. Why not send directly elected people to it? That would be the preferable route. We should have a Committee of the Regions with members directly elected by a fair and proportional system. That would secure a more suitable form of legislature.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman might find it helpful to throw that question back to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) because when we debated an amendment in the same terms in Committee, he voted for the proposition that he is now questioning.

Mr. Maclennan: I am grateful to the Minister for prodding my memory. It is unusual to invite the hon. Member who has the Floor to ask another hon. Member to intervene in the way the Minister suggests, and I am not sure how the Chair would react to such a request by me. But the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) is not usually slow to intervene if he sees an opportunity to get himself out of a hole that the Minister has dug for him.
I am satisfied that, so far as it goes, the new clause is to be welcomed. It is a modest step towards democratic accountability, to strengthening the authority of the Committee of the Regions and to giving it some influence, albeit modest, over the legislative process of the Community. To that, at this stage in its development, is perhaps as far as we can aspire.

Mr. Marlow: The Minister of State made, towards the end of the speech of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), an uncharacteristically ungenerous intervention. I did indeed vote for the


amendment in Committee, and I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would have been grateful to see a sinner turn to repentance. But I have not turned to repentance, because I knew precisely what I was doing when I voted in Committee.
I do not like the Committee of the Regions, and I do not like the Bill. I thought that we should have further debate about the Committee of the Regions and that we should certainly debate the Bill on Report. My right hon. Friend and I have discussed these issues before. On one occasion, we spoke about a tactical or probing closure. On that occasion, it was a probing vote.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. I am seeking to establish, not just for the group of amendments now before the House but perhaps for others, that the votes that my hon. Friend casts are cast primarily for tactical reasons rather than For any attachment to a cause. He seems to be suggesting that, although I do not wish to lead him down a route that he does not intend to take.

Mr. Marlow: In common with my right hon. Friend, one votes in this place for a variety of reasons on a variety of occasions. On that occasion, rather than a tactical it was a strategic decision to vote for the amendment. We now have an opportunity to put the matter right.
Hon. Members may be aware that my name is attached to two amendments in the group now being discussed. Both are concerned with representation on the Committee of the Regions. I am in very august company on one, because the first name, after which mine appears, is that of the Foreign Secretary. That amendment would withdraw from the amended Bill the amendment to which the House agreed in Committee, and hurrah for that.

Sir Roger Moate: Would my hon. Friend vote for that?

Mr. Marlow: Most certainly. I would vote for it for strategic and tactical reasons, and with pleasure. It is my intention to vote for it should an opportunity arise at a later stage.
I have tabled another amendment about how and from where—from which parts of the United Kingdom—the members of the committee should be selected. I understand that the Committee of the Regions is basically a body that has been established for reasons that we have not been given. But we know, if we read the treaty in detail, that the committee will be consulted about the allocation of structural funds and regional development funds. In other words, where there is money to be spent, members of the Committee of the Regions will be guiding and directing, as far as they can, where that money should be spent.
That brings me to the important issue of who should be on the committee. I asked the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland what the organisation would do. One reads the treaty from beginning to end and one reads in Hansard, among other things, the remarks that the Minister of State made on previous occasions about the remit and role of the committee, but nothing can one find.
But one knows, having had a certain amount of exposure to European legislation, having read the treaty in some detail and knowing where European legislation will go in the future, that Europe does not have responsibility for education or local planning—

Sir Roger Moate: Or for social services.

Mr. Marlow: Exactly: as my hon. Friend points out, it does not have responsibility for social services. It does not have any responsibility for those activities for which local government is responsible. So if we are to send people to the committee, and if the Committee of the Regions is to exist, the last people on earth we should send at this stage are local councillors, because they will be talking about issues that have nothing to do with local councils.
It is clear that we must have another think aboul the matter. That is one reason why I am delighted to have voted as I did in Committee, because the House now has another opportunity to look carefully at that important organisation, the Committee of the Regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Sir R. Moate) said that he saw it as a potential second chamber, a sort of senate—

Sir Roger Moate: I did not say that.

Mr. Marlow: I apologise if I have misinterpreted my hon. Friend.

Sir Roger Moate: I hope that my hon. Friend will not credit me with such ambitions or fears. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), speaking for the Liberals, saw it, frankly and honestly, as a potential second chamber. Perish the thought. One has that very fear, for it could go in all sorts of directions and I do not for a moment want to think of it going in that direction.

Mr. Marlow: If I credited my hon. Friend with an interpretation that was not correct, I immediately discredit him with that interpretation. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, it is pregnant with potential—with great powers and potential damage—so we must be careful whom we send, and the last people we should send are local councillors.
Whom should we send? If there is to be local representation from the United Kingdom, we must look at the different parts of the country, at the different interests and think of the different sorts of people who should go. If London is a region, the best people to send are active professionals and financiers from London who know how the City of London and the guilds work and about the wealth-creating activities of the capital. They are best able to represent London, because they generate its wealth.
If we are to send people from the midlands region—the black country and Birmingham—where much manufacturing takes place, perhaps we should send representatives from the wealth-creating community there. In other contexts, we should send arts and heritage people and those concerned with culture and the environment. Consider the broad open spaces of Lincolnshire and the west country, where there is a great deal of agricultural activity. The best person to send from there might be a representative of the National Farmers Union or the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers. Councillors are the last people we should send.

Mr. Maclennan: Does not the hon. Gentleman remember that Lord Plumb, who was elected to the European Parliament, was the president of the National Farmers Union? Election to an organisation does not preclude someone from having a knowledge of what he or she is talking about.

7 pm

Mr. Marlow: That is a statement of the blindingly obvious. If we leave the Bill as it is at present, it means that members of the Committee of the Regions should be, first and foremost, local councillors. It is my view—after mature consideration I expect that it will be the view of Conservative Members, and possibly of the House—that those people are the least able to fulfil the role, particularly if it becomes an important one.
We want people from the regions who represent the most important things which are happening there, for which Europe has responsibility. Europe has responsibility for trade and agriculture, and growing responsibilities in other spheres, many of which I would resist. Europe certainly has responsibility in matters of trade and agriculture. Therefore, surely, if regional views are to be represented at the European level, it is vital to send representatives of the regional views who are members of the corporate state—the great and the good, trade unionists, manufacturers, those with commercial and agricultural interests, and industrialists. Of course, there is a European dimension to our cultural and environmental affairs.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said in a previous debate—[Interruption.] He does not have to listen to what I am saying, it is not particularly important. There are organisations within our body politic where people with different interests and from different parties can come together, consult and decide on the most appropriate people to fulfil the functions. I am sure that that process could be put into action through the usual channels. However, I stress that the important factor is to send those people who will make the most impact on the policies decided at European level, and those people should not be councillors.
The amendment in my name—I think, amendment No. 32—covers how the positions should be allocated within the United Kingdom, which is to have 24 seats. I understand that the Scots and the Welsh have their eye on the lion's share of the seats, and I can understand why. They have always looked upon themselves as different and specific regions, and having done so, they expect to be treated better, pro rata, than the rest of the kingdom.
Even my right hon. Friend the Minister said on 25 February that he recognised that there would need to be
some tilting towards Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland."—[Official Report, 25 February 1993; Vol. 219, c. 1064.]
I do not recognise that, and I do not think that my constituents do. It has nothing to do with the states, principalities and nations that make up the United Kingdom, but with the fact that equal representation is available to all
We know that, for historical reasons, Scottish Members of the House represent fewer constituents than English Members. As I understand it, that was contained in the treaty of Union, and we cannot do a great deal about it —perhaps we should not. However, we do not have to extend that principle to the Committee of the Regions. Nobody has given any justification or reason why we should do so.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will notice that my name appears among those supporting his amendment. I speak as a Scot and ask my hon. Friend whether he believes that there is a danger of the separatists using the

vehicle of additional bodies in what they believe to be places of influence to undermine Parliament. That is why it would be wrong to base the representation of the Committee of the Regions on the representation in this place.

Mr. Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support for my amendment, and I also concur with what he has said. I am sure that it is more than a twinkle or gleam in the eye of the Commission that the Committee of the Regions should include among its functions that of dissolving the bonds within the United Kingdom, so that Brussels can reach over the head of the House and seduce what it considers to be the regions away from Parliament, the House and the kingdom. Surely it must be our role to thwart that ambition.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I hope that it has not escaped the attention of my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the way to have cast aside the fears now being expressed with such eloquence by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North would have beer to support the Government in defeating Labour's amendment in Committee. Had they done so, none of the fears that my hon. Friend is now voicing about elected councillors and deals with nationalists would have arisen.

Mr. Marlow: With respect, I think that I have covered that issue. I am now talking, not about whether elected councillors should be appointed, but about the regional allocation of seats.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Perhaps uncharacteristically, far from apologising for having discussions through the usual channels in the House, on this occasion I regard them as a good thing in themselves. However, such discussions would probably not have been initiated had my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, North and for Tayside, North supported the Government on the amendment.

Mr. Marlow: I am not sure what my right hon. Friend is saying, but it could be very important. If my right hon. Friend is saying that he did not like the amendment in Committee, is not happy with new clause 42 which the Government have tabled, would be happy for it to be defeated and then propose a mixture of appointees to the Committee of the Regions which would do the job more effectively for the United Kingdom, I should be happy to support him.

Mr. Garel-Jones: My hon. Friend—whom I hold in esteem and affection—is telling the House that he will now vote against precisely the same proposition as he supported in Committee. I beg him not to play games with me or the House. The Government were defeated in Committee. We are now acting as a Government should in that position. We had to decide whether to seek to overturn the decision—we believe that we do not have the support of my hon. Friend in doing so—or to comply with the will of the House. We are complying with the will of the House. I beg my hon. Friend not to play games with either the House or me. He supported one proposition a month ago and is now speaking and advocating a vote against the proposition.

Mr. Marlow: I genuinely hold my right hon. Friend in great esteem and affection—I am sure that my right hon.


Friend was also genuine when he made that remark of me. I explained in detail to my right hon. Friend what happened on a previous occasion. My right hon. Friend was saying with regard to our Irish friends in the Chamber that he would not want to start from here, but we are here, and we have to improve the position from here. The Government are apparently accepting what happened in Committee. If the Government have a better policy that they feel will better fulfil the United Kingdom's role than the solution produced in Committee.—[Interruption.] If my right hon. Friend wants to discuss possible alternatives that will gain majority support among Conservative Members and sufficient support within the House to gain victory, he should produce them.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I shall not intervene on my hon. Friend again, but he is playing games with me and with the House that do not deceive me or the House. It is clear that he played games in Committee and is playing games again. I think that that fact should lie on the record.

Mr. Marlow: That is my right hon. Friend's view. My right hon. Friend knows that the Bill is dynamite. There are many ways of resolving the problems that we face. There are opportunities for the Government, not only here but in another place, to resolve the problems over the Committee of the Regions. If the Government feel that the Bill, as presently amended, is wrong, they have plenty of opportunities to put it right. They will receive the overwhelming support of Conservative Members.

Mr. Mallon: I listened to the hon. Gentleman with some interest in Committee, as I have today, and I see that there is some misunderstanding between the Minister and himself. Let me give him the opportunity of clarifying matters. Will he confirm to the House—it would dispel the fears of the Minister and many others—whether, irrespective of how many would be on the committee, who they were, from where they were selected and how they were to operate, he would still be opposed to a Committee of the Regions—or are there circumstances in which he would support it? That would clarify the position for us all.

Mr. Marlow: To be quite frank, I do not like the Committee of the Regions. I am not sure what it is there to do, potentially what it might do in future, what its powers may be and how the House will be able to influence those powers at a later stage. If there is to be a Committee of the Regions, I believe that there may be a balance of members and a means of appointment that may be more satisfactory than that on the face of the Bill.

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for going some way towards clarifying his position. He voted against it on the last occasion and he is voting for it today, so we are becoming confused. I ask him again whether there is any set of circumstances, irrespective of the numbers on the committee and its personnel, in which he would vote for a Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Marlow: The straight answer to the hon. Gentleman's point is that, if I could abolish the Committee of the Regions, I would do so. But if there is to be a Committee of the Regions and if I have any ability to influence its membership, I would seek to do so in such a way as not to have locally elected councillors and to look at the regional allocation of membership of the committee.
Luxembourg, which has roughly the same population as Northamptonshire, has been allocated six places on the Committee of the Regions. My hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) was talking about the red banana—the wealthy part of Europe with the fewest regional problems—and that includes Luxembourg.
In the House, there are six hon. Members representing Northamptonshire. Luxembourg is of similar size, but is to have six out of 189 members of the Committee of the Regions throughout Europe. That is totally disproportionate and unacceptable.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Luxembourg is a very small country with one full-powered Commissioner to balance it out. Why should it have six representatives on the Committee of the Regions when it has a full-powered Commissioner at the seat where decisions are taken?

Mr. Marlow: I could not agree more strongly. The powers of the small states within Europe are far too great in proportion to their population. Why should we reinforce and sustain that?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. This has very little to do with the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Marlow: I certainly accept your rebuke, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
With regard to the number of members of the Committee of the Regions, if I were to ask my constituents whether Northampton should be included with four or five other counties, they would not accept that. Why should Luxembourg have 20 times the representation of Northamptonshire? Has it regional problems additional to those in Northamptonshire? How can it he justified? How can we agree to the over-representation of Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland and Denmark?
The balance of the Committee of the Regions will come from the smaller countries of Europe. Countries such as Belgium and Holland are part of the wealthy heart of Europe; they do not have more problems, and they do not need more consideration and a higher profile on the Committee of the Regions. Why have we agreed to that? Returning to the membership of the United Kingdom allocation, surely it should be decided on a pro rata basis within the United Kingdom.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: Does it follow from the hon. Gentleman's argument that he believes that Germany should have approximately twice as many representatives as the United Kingdom on the Committee of the Regions?

Mr. Marlow: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman, who has made some splendid speeches on the Bill, but he will know as I do that the population of Germany is not twice that of the United Kingdom. Under present proposals, Germany is getting the same allocation as the United Kingdom. That is wrong; there should be more German representatives on the Committee of the Regions than there are representatives from the United Kingdom. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is trying to provoke me into agreeing with him, but we do agree.

Mr. Edward Garnier: Does the thrust of my hon. Friend's argument suggest that he is a late convert to proportional representation?

Mr. Marlow: I take the Italian view of proportional representation. I do not support proportional representation. It has nothing to do with proportional representation. If my hon. Friend thinks that to have similar-sized constituencies in Lincolnshire, Essex, the west country or Scotland is proportional representation, that is not my understanding. It is the first-past-the-post system in which each Member of Parliament has roughly the same number of constituents. We have the same job, and in this day and age, when much is done by telephone and through the media, the size of the constituency rather than the number of people in it is less relevant than it was in the past.
If we are to establish a new organisation, the most sensible way to do it is on a pro rata basis, not just between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but within England and the rest of Europe. I find it difficult to support a concept that does the opposite.
Having said all that, the amendment in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary would delete the amendment made in Committee. I know it will cause great consternation to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but I shall have great joy in supporting it when the time comes.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: This has been quite a remarkable debate in one unique sense—that the integrity of myself and my colleagues has been attacked from a number of directions. We had a fierce attack from the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), flanked as he was earlier by the hon. Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers). We had an equally fierce attack from those who have opposed the Bill throughout the Committee stage.
It is quite remarkable that we should have been subject to those attacks, bearing in mind of course that we supported the Bill on Second Reading. We made it quite clear on Second Reading and in Committee why we supported the Bill: we wanted to see the Maastricht treaty implemented quickly. We wanted to see progress being made towards its ratification.
I hope that the hon. Members who attacked us for voting in that way will at least acknowledge that we were consistent. Throughout the Committee stage of the Bill we supported ways in which quicker progress could be made and we voted to ensure that any amendment which sought to wreck the treaty and undermine it was voted down. That was an honourable position for us to have taken and we have been consistent in our view.
The hon. Member for Hamilton said, "Look how many times Plaid Cymru voted for the Bill." We make no apologies whatsoever for that because we are four square behind the principles enshrined in the treaty. It does not go as far as we would like in a number of respects, but our position is absolutely clear.
In responding to my interventions, the hon. Member for Hamilton failed to acknowledge that there was no difference whatsoever in the pattern of voting that I and my colleagues established prior to the vote on the Committee of the Regions and subsequently. He will find the same consistent pattern. What surprised me about the voting records of the hon. Gentleman and his hon.

Friends, particularly as the hon. Gentleman is an avowed pro-European, is that on more than 30 occasions they were prepared to walk through the Lobbies with Conservative Members whose avowed intention is to destroy the treaty. They consistently voted with them.
Why did they do that? Why do pro-Europeans find themselves in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow)? What did he tell us tonight? He wants to scrap the Committee of the Regions. He wants to see it destroyed. What did the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) tell the House? He said that the Committee of the Regions is a pathetic and absolutely useless body. Yet on that night he was in the Lobby with Labour Members. That is a contradiction. How can one say that one favours a principle and yet consistently vote against it?

Mr. George Robertson: The hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) says that he is voting on principle, but with his colleagues he is a signatory to amendment No. 2. If the Government put the Tellers in, he will be voting with us and with the Tory rebels on amendment No. 2. He has made an exception in that instance. Why should he criticise hon. Members who have made that discriminating choice on other occasions?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Hamilton claims to have read our voting record and to have given the House the numbers. He spoke of 52 occasions out of 59. Did he read the vote in the House on his party's amendment to the social chapter on Second Reading? Where did he find us in the Lobbies on that night? He found us with himself and his hon. Friends because we are consistent and have always said that the social chapter should be included. [Interruption.] On Second Reading the Opposition put down an amendment which said that the social chapter should be part of the treaty. We voted with Labour Members on that occasion because we believe in it. That is the principle on which we stood.
As I listened to the hon. Member for Hamilton, I asked myself why he was attacking us. What does he find obnoxious in Wales getting at least three members, and possibly four, on the Committee of the Regions? What does he find obnoxious in my party's accepting that the members of the Committee of the Regions should be elected councillors or in the fact that the representatives in Wales should be answerable to a body?
Then I realised why he did not like the arrangement to ensure that Wales has a number of representatives to the Committee of the Regions which is more than his party would allow. A report in the Municipal Journal of 12 March 1993 shows that the Labour-dominated associations of local authorities have carved up the Committee of the Regions between themselves. This is the deal that the Labour party has done to stitch up Wales and Scotland. Let me tell the House about it:
The associations have agreed how the committee places should he divided, with 10 for English shire areas; six (English metropolitan districts); two (London); two (Wales); three (Scotland) and one for Northern Ireland.

Is that what the Labour party wants Wales to have—two representives on the Committee of the Regions? That was not good enough for us in March. It is not good enough for us today either. We are out to get the best deal that we can for Wales. We are out to ensure not only that


we get the highest number possible squeezed out of the House of Commons but that they do not come from one party.

Mr. Marlow: What the hon. Gentleman says is very interesting. Is he saying that the Labour party suggests that Wales should have twice as many members of the Committee of the Regions as London, which has four times the population of Wales? How does he justify that?

Mr. Jones: We have always accepted that there is a difficulty about representation in the House for Wales and Scotland. The hon. Member for Northampton, North has acknowledged that the House accepts that. The principle is enshrined in the way in which hon. Members are elected to the House. The hon. Member has said that there are more representatives from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland for historical reasons. That, I believe, should be reflected in the way we send people to the Committee of the Regions.

Mr. Marlow: Why?

Mr. Jones: Because we are disadvantaged.
Let me return to the point that I was making about who should go to the Committee of the Regions. We made it clear that they should be elected councillors and that nobody else was acceptable. Let me go further. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Hamilton. He said that Labour Members did not want the House of Commons to decide who should select the representatives, that Labour Members were perfectly content for the House of Commons to state that they should be elected councillors and that they did not want to tie the hands of the House as to how those people should be selected. Under the Labour amendment the three, or two, representing the region of Wales on the Committee of the Regions could be Conservative councillors, and they could not have opposed that. That might be the Government's choice. Conversely—and this is the real reason why the Labour party did not want to tie anyone's hands—if it had its way, they would be three, or two, Labour councillors.
I say that because I listened with care to the hon. Member for Hamilton saying that because Plaid Cymru had less than 10 per cent. of the vote in Wales it should not have a representative and because the Liberal party had only 15 per cent. of the vote it should not have one. The Labour party had 50 per cent. of the vote in Wales. Does that mean that all the councillors should be Labour?

Mr. Ron Davies: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not being strictly accurate in his representation of Labour party policy. It has been made abundantly clear by me and by many of my colleagues who represent Welsh constituencies that it is our intention—and it is a fact, now that the House has accepted our proposal—that these representatives should come from local government. We have made it clear that the precise mechanism for choosing those individuals should be decided by the institutions of local government in Wales, either by the Association of Welsh Counties or by the Council of Welsh Districts.
Let me make clear a point that should be established at this stage. The proposition that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Mr. Jones) has entered into by means of some covert agreement with the Government will now require members of Plaid Cymru to submit a list to the Government so that they can vet those nominees and make a selection from the

names. That is not the way the Labour party intends to do it. If it is the case that one representative is allocated to the Labour party, we will have a secret ballot. Why does the hon. Gentleman not decide that this is an appropriate course of action for him to follow?

Mr. Jones: Let me make it clear to the hon. Member that there would be no veto on anyone chosen if it should be a Plaid Cymru representative. I can tell him as well that there would be no Plaid Cymru, Liberal or any other representative if the Labour party had its way.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that as regards Wales the Labour amendment is wholly otiose because all the discussions that the hon. Member and his hon. Friends had with the Treasury Bench were at all times on the basis that all representatives should be representatives of local government? So there is nothing in the amendment for Wales.

Mr. Jones: Absolutely. The only arrangement that benefits Wales is the one made by Plaid Cymru, no thanks to the Labour party which would have let Wales down with two representatives, it seems, as Labour Members have not challenged the report in the Municipal Journal.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Member reflect on the earlier part of the debate and the revelation of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) that the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, dominated by the Labour party, has suggested that five out of the six representatives allowed by the Labour party, that is, three representatives and three alternates, should be Labour councillors?
In an earlier debate, that seemed to come as something of a surprise to the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). Does it give the hon. Gentleman any confidence that the Labour party would treat Wales any differently from Scotland, where it has tried to carve up the seats according to its liking?

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend makes his own point. It is perfectly clear that the reason why the Labour party was so angry about the arrangement that we were able to secure for Wales was that it upset the little stitch-up that it had done with its friends elsewhere.

Mr. Ron Davies: The hon. Gentleman is giving the House entirely inaccurate information. If he consults the councillors who represent his party on the Council of Welsh Districts, they will tell him that I and my colleagues met them in January of this year and made it absolutely clear that the Labour party recognised that there would have to be a plurality of representation. Furthermore, we believed that the decision should be based on a secret ballot of all councillors in Wales, making up an electoral college devised in such a way as to provide proper representation for the north, the south, the east, the west, urban and rural districts, and men and women. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this and stop trying to misrepresent the Labour party's position.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has spent six weeks misrepresenting the position of my party. All I have done is quote a report that appeared in a respected journal, showing what the Labour-dominated Association of Welsh Counties has said.
I would take all this much more kindly from the hon. Gentleman if everything that he has said about his wishes had been included in his amendment. Had it mentioned plurality and the sort of numbers that Wales should have, I could have accepted that.

Mr. Hoon: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and have tried to understand the basis on which he suggests representation should be allocated to the Committee of the Regions. I do not question his claim to be a man of principle from a party of principle, but what I have failed to understand from his speech is what exactly the principle of representation that he advocates is. I have been able to understand only that he says Wales should get more because Wales is disadvantaged. I do not dispute that—Scotland is disadvantaged, the east midlands is disadvantaged, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent disadvantaged constituencies in the north. That is not a principle: I am looking for a principle.

Mr. Jones: That is a good point, to which I shall come later.
I would like to list what we consider important ingredients in the way in which the committee's representatives are to be selected. First, there should be some bias in favour of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Secondly, the representatives should be elected people. Thirdly, they should not be chosen by Ministers. Fourthly, they should not come from one political tradition; they should reflect the diversity of political tradition in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Finally, they should go to the committee not merely representing themselves but as representing Wales; hence, they should report back.
These are the principles on which we have fought the campaign, and I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly accepts that. I outlined all these points once or twice in Committee, and the Minister responded to them there. There was nothing secret about them, either.

Mr. George Robertson: The vote in which the hon. Gentleman sided with the Government was a vote about the United Kingdom's delegation to the Committee of the Regions. I know that the hon. Gentleman represents a separatist party, so he may have no interest in the general composition of that delegation. The hon. Gentleman alleges that the principles on which he bases his support for the Government include the idea that something positive is being done for Wales. I should like to know whether he has the agreement in writing, because that is more than the SNP has. I say this because what the hon. Gentleman did on the night in question was to throw the rest of the country back into the lap of the Government's attempt to put their cronies—business men and appointees—on the committee to represent the rest of the country. Does the hon. Gentleman's interest in local democracy end at the borders of Wales; or did he ignore the interests of the rest of the country when he sided with the crony-backing Tory Government?

Mr. Jones: I find the hon. Gentleman's turn of phrase offensive. He has accused me of being a separatist—an emotive word. How can someone who supports the Maastricht treaty be a separatist?

Mr. Robertson: My knowledge of Wales—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is going rather wide of the new clause. Hon. Members can hold their discussions and fights outside.

Mr. Jones: I just want to put it on record that I deny that I am a separatist: I support the Maastricht treaty and this European Bill, which moves in a direction giving Wales a greater voice in the European Community, not on its own but in partnership with other small nations in the EC—

Mr. Ted Rowlands: But many of the EC institutions are run from the centre.

Mr. Jones: I know that there is a distinctive voice in the Labour party that disagrees, and I understand and respect it—but I also want to make clear where I stand. Unlike Conservative Members, I believe that the Committee of the Regions has a valuable role to play. Certainly it is only a consultative body, but in time it will become a powerful voice for the regions and historic nations of Europe. I hope that that time will come soon.

Mr. Mallon: The debate began with an exposition of the nationalist parties' position, and it is ending on the same note. At the core of the debate have been several principles. It is remarkable how, in politics, when we discuss principles we soon get on to numbers—to do with representation or with pounds—but that seems to apply the world over.
In Committee and again today, we have often heard terms such as the nation, the state and the region. That is why this is an interesting part of the Maastricht debate. Nationalism has been debated in relation to the committee in four different ways. I can understand the position of the Scottish National party; I can understand the position of Plaid Cymru, which has presented its nationalist, if not separatist, ideas quite clearly; I even think that I can understand our party's nationalist position on this. The position that really intrigues me, however, is that of the English nationalists, as expressed by Conservative Members throughout these debates.
As a nationalist myself, I think that people are entitled to be English nationalists, just as I am entitled to be a separatist from Northern Ireland who believes that nationalism is a potent, creative and outgoing force. The problem with the English nationalist position, as expressed in these debates, is that it is introverted, inward looking and blinkered, refusing to look beyond itself and using this innocuous Committee of the Regions as an excuse to defend that inability to look outwards and see that there is a world in which it can flourish.
One good thing about the Committee of the Regions is that the representatives of each country will be in a minority. There will be nothing but minorities. Therefore, alliances will be forged and arrangements will be made to suit regions. There will be an agricultural lobby, which will be good for agriculture, and an industrial lobby, which will be good for industry. There will be lobbies for business and for labour.
It is likely that the representatives from this country, from Wales, from Scotland or even from Northern Ireland, if we have representation, will not all go in the same direction at all times. That will be good, because the Committee of the Regions will lead to a new type of debate about our involvement in Europe. Representatives will not consider matters from a national, a state or even a regional


position, but much more broadly. They will deal with matters more constructively than under the accepted Anglo-American system of a parliamentary democracy governed by a Whip system. That will be to the benefit of every country.
The new clause proposes that representation be confined to those elected to local authorities. I have reservations about that in relation to the north of Ireland. I wish well those who will have to endure the attitudes taken by members of Belfast city council, if they happen to be representatives. Again, there would be an advantage because it is rumoured that travel and involvement in Europe broaden the mind. We have only to look round this Parliament to see evidence of that. People come back from the European Parliament with broader views, especially if they represent Northern Ireland constituencies. That could contribute enormously to Northern Ireland.
I do not want to be parochial, except on one point. Some people refer to themselves as a nation or as a state, and look upon themselves as a state within a nation, but no one can argue that Northern Ireland is a nation., a state or a state within a nation. If ever a piece of legislation was framed to suit an area, it is the European Communities (Amendment) Bill because we truly are a region and we want to be part of the Europe of the regions because of the benefits which can accrue from it.
There will be not just financial benefit but other benefits too:
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
The interchange of ideas can only be good for all of us, whatever regions we represent. A cultural interchange is surely worth developing within Europe. There is also political interchange. Are we so perfect that we cannot learn from other countries? Whoever we are, or wherever we come from, surely we can learn from other political or governmental arrangements within Europe. Or are we frozen in time and in our attitudes to the political process? We should not think of the benefits simply in monetary terms; there is more to it than that.
7.45 pm
The European experiment is growing and I support it fully. I support the Maastricht treaty because I am a nationalist and want to see the nationalisms that exist on both sides of the House developing in a creative, constructive way. We know what it is to have nationalism that is not constructive. Let us take the meaning of the words "Sinn Fein"; translated literally, they mean "ourselves alone". That is not the way in which to create a future. That form of nationalism is destructive and introverted, and it will not contribute to the wider Europe which we all want.
If there is one reason why we should want a wider Europe with an interchange of views, cultures and experience, it is what is happening in Yugoslavia. If it is thought that the new Europe should have a role in European defence, surely it is better that representatives from all parts of the region should add to the views of Governments. I welcome that as well.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) mentioned nationalists in different guises, shapes and forms. He leaves me bemused because he told us that he wants to see Europe working and the greater involvement of all countries. Those are splendid

aspirations, yet he comes from a part of the United Kingdom where there is much trouble and he is part of a political system which wishes not to be part of the United Kingdom. He seemed to be making a case for being part of Europe which could equally be made for being part of the United Kingdom. He talked about working together. All the things that he said about Europe should be said about the United Kingdom and the benefits of the United Kingdom.
I wonder what category the hon. Gentleman would put me in. I am a Scot who has been concerned from the outset that the Maastricht treaty is an instrument that may, and probably will, lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom. That is why I, as a Scot, oppose in principle the setting up of the Committee of the Regions.
Sadly, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is not here. Earlier he chastised my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for being inconsistent and playing games. I trust that I am neither inconsistent nor deemed by anyone to be playing games. I do not support the setting up of the Committee of the Regions because I have a clear view of its possible impact on Scotland. But when it became clear that there would probably be a majority in favour of the Committee of the Regions, I had to examine carefully its composition and the way in which membership was to be allocated. I had in mind the possibility of a Report stage, and I wanted to ensure that we had the opportunity to consider the composition again. That seemed tactically to be wise. We were successful in both attempts. That is hardly playing games. Surely that is what Parliament is for.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that the real playing of games was referred to by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), in his sincere speech, when he talked about Yugoslavia where there was the same artificial federation, without democracy, as is proposed for Europe?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must not discuss Yugoslavia.

Mr. Walker: I shall not be tempted to do that. It is arrogant for politicians of my generation, who have been unable to resolve Northern Ireland's problems, to assume that we can resolve the problems of Europe and the world. I have never been able to understand that arrogance, because, as a Scot, I live with a constant constitutional problem. I fight every election on it and have been involved in it throughout my adult life because the constitution is important to all Scots from whatever side of the political spectrum.
No one doubts the integrity of the nationalists who clearly state that they want a separate Scotland with a separate Parliament, although I do not agree with that view. Nationalists see the Committee of the Regions as a vehicle by which they can further their aims. They make no secret of what they are attempting to do and I do not argue with the principle of that. However, those of us who oppose that should look carefully at the composition of the committee and how its members are selected because that will have a bearing on future events, especially if the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) has his way and it becomes what he called a senate, a second chamber to the European Parliament.
That is the route to separation. The European Parliament is trying to draw more powers to itself, and it


is proper for it to do that, although I do not agree with it. Our job in looking carefully at how the committee will be established and at the people who will serve on it will be to ensure that we do not pander to situations and circumstances that could lead to the creation of a vehicle for breaking up the United Kingdom.
No one should be in any doubt about the impact on the Scottish media when Brussels starts to deal directly with Edinburgh. That will be exploited by those who wish to break up the United Kingdom, and they will do that honourably and properly because that is what they want to do. This unitary Parliament with all its failings, including me with all my failings, and despite the fact that none of my amendments has been selected—which is my fault and not the fault of Parliament—is still the best legislative assembly anywhere. That does not mean that it is not vulnerable, because one of the great problems with democracy is that if we get things wrong we are in danger of setting up structures that may destroy what we set out to protect.
The problem with the Committee of the Regions is that it will become more than a talking shop, just as the European Parliament became more than just a talking shop. For those who do not know, the proportions in which we elect people to this place were laid down in a treaty signed in 1707 but which was the Scottish Act of 1706. Article 22 of that treaty of Union clearly sets out the numbers and it has nothing to do with Wales or Northern Ireland.

Mr. Mallon: I should like to respond as sincerely as possible to the points made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are not debating Yugoslavia.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the arrangement between Scotland and England. That is the same type of federalism that was referred to in another context.

Mr. Walker: I do not propose to enter that area. I have spent my adult life debating constitutional issues and I would welcome any opportunity to debate that matter anywhere with the hon. Gentleman. I know the contents of the treaty of Union and the changes that have been made since 1707. I have spent a lifetime studying it.
Parliament is drifting into a situation which will lead to those who follow me waking up one day and saying, "Good heavens, we have created a monster which will break up the United Kingdom." As I said in another speech, there is no point in saying, "I didnae ken", because, as the Scots say, "Ye ken noo." I am pleased to see my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has returned to his place, because I dealt with his intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North.
One of the great problems in attempting to address this massive constitutional issue is that some people have trivialised it and have attempted to categorise people by putting them into suitable pigeon holes. Those of us who care about this Parliament and about the Union between Scotland and England, which created the finest country in the world in which to live, and which I want my grandchildren to enjoy, will recognise that, throughout the

passage of the Bill, I have been motivated by my concern about what the Bill and the treaty, if they are enacted, will do to the unity of the United Kingdom. The Committee of the Regions will be a Trojan horse.

Mr. John Gunnell: I think that all my hon. Friends will be consistent in the way that we vote. We voted for the amendment in Committee because we believe in a Committee of the Regions with elected members. We shall vote for the new clause because we welcome the proposal to have those elected members.
I welcome the committee because it will put decentralised government on at least the agenda of the European Community. Although the committee has an inadequate basis and an inadequate task, the expectations of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Sir R. Body) are more likely to come to pass than those of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor).
Irrespective of whether the United Kingdom elects to the committee people of considerable ability, there is no doubt that European regions will put forward such people. Those people will be capable of addressing the issues of Europe and the influence and status of the committee will increase. It signals the beginning of a regional input to European decision making.
If the new clause is accepted the members of the committee will be elected and that will strengthen the United Kingdom and its representatives on the committee. If we had unelected members and a large majority on the committee were elected representatives from the other member states, our position would be weak. Most member states will have elected participants and if we do the same the United Kingdom will have a greater influence.
How can we be sure that those who are selected, however it is done, will do the job effectively and be valuable members of the committee and properly represent the needs of the English, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish regions?
Over the past 12 years, much of my experience has been in regional representation. I have spent all that time as the chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside development association, which is the regional organisation used by the Department of Trade and Industry to attract inward investment. The Department accepts that the most effective way to promote the country abroad is to do so at the regional level. Much of my task as chairman of that organisation was to ensure a commitment from all parts of the region to promoting the region and to seek inward investment.
8 pm
We have to work at regional representation. Because of the fragmented nature of our local government, many of the regions, which are technically European regions, have an existence that is rarely cohesive and coherent. Part of the job of anyone who heads a regional organisation is to bring together different bodies to achieve regional representation. The success of Yorkshire and Humberside in attracting inward investment, for which the Conservative party has claimed the credit, has been due in no small part to the fact that one has worked to get people throughout the region committed to the regional view of the task to be undertaken. I have also headed Yorkshire Enterprise, which is a regional venture capital company. Again, its strength comes from operating on a regional basis.
Once we recognise that getting a regional base is subject to voluntary co-operation, we see how having regional representation on the Committee of the Regions can benefit us and give us more effective representation. However, our representation will be effective only if the representatives are able genuinely to exercise a regional mandate. For that reason, the question posed by Conservative Members about whether a member of a parish council represents an elected member appropriate to go on the Committee of the Regions is an empty one. We need people with a breadth of regional experience and a breadth of understanding of the needs of their entire region and we should be selecting people to undertake that task because we believe that they will have a mandate that encompasses not a narrow interest but all the interests of the region.
One of my experiences over recent years has been my involvement in international inter-regional work. I have been saddened by much that has been said tonight because I know from experience that there is value in working together with people from other regional organisations in other European countries. The formation of the organisation RETI—the Association of Traditional Industrial Regions of Europe—and the Assembly of European Regions shows that such organisations, once created, will develop and strengthen.
The Assembly of European Regions, which was formed in 1984, has influenced today's events. The proposal for a Committee of the Regions to be a senate for the regions was made by the assembly to the original meeting considering revisions to the treaty of Rome. That organisation has consistently pushed for the formation of a committee and it will continue to push to ensure that that committee gains stronger powers.
My involvement has shown, first, that in the varying strengths of regional governments among our European partners there is often a link between the strength of regional government and the strength of regional economies. When we last debated the Committee of the Regions, the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said that the United Kingdom, in part, determined the formation of the German Lander. The aim then was to divide the country and weaken its national basis. However, in creating the Lander, we provided the basis for the stength of the German economy. Its form of regional government has helped it to develop a diverse and strong economy.
In the context of the Committee of the Regions, the Germans do not face our difficulty over representation. Already, they have determined that each of the 16 Länder will have one member on the Committee of the Regions, with a further five members being allocated one each to the five Lander with the greatest populations, some of which are considerable; for example, North Rhine-Westphalia has a population of 17 million. The strength of the European regions has been a factor in developing the Assembly of European Regions and in pushing for the development that we are debating today.
There has been value in direct representation. Many of the English counties have become involved in the Assembly of the European Regions, as have many metropolitan areas, with the joint agreement of their district councils. The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) may pooh-pooh the Committee of the Regions, but he may have noted that Essex county council sends representatives to, and is a member of, the assembly. It has

found that there is value in direct representation. It is extremely important in the decisions that we take that there is a form of direct representation from each of the accepted European regions. We have to devise a method whereby the selection of those people who represent the regions has the widest possible acceptance.
A number of practical consequences flow from inter-regional work in terms of the contacts between people and ideas and of the joint working between people faced with similar environmental, economic and industrial problems. I am convinced that the committee will be of good value.
It is obvious that Britain's decentralisation is a handicap in participating in regional forums, and therefore in terms of the balance that is struck in the decisions that the Government take about the composition of the committee. I urge the Government to follow up that proposal and the new clause with widespread consultation on the different balances that will need to be represented on the committee. There must be a fair distribution of seats, which includes representation from each of the European regions acknowledged as part of England, in addition to representation from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
There must be a proper balance that reflects the strength of the political parties in the regions. There must be a balance between levels of authority where, as in Scotland, there are regional councils and local authorities. Each of the participating countries faces similar problems. I believe that the Committee of the Regions will develop and as it develops we may need alternative mechanisms for selecting representatives.
In due course, the Labour party's proposal for regional government will strengthen Britain's economy and democracy. With the introduction of genuine regional government we shall have no difficulty in sorting out the mechanism whereby we fill the places on the Committee of the Regions.
The committee's development and strength, its debates and decision, may help a Government who have consistently centralised to see the value of decentralisation. We shall in due course see the Labour party's proposals for regional government come to fruition in Britain.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 1

CONVERGENCE CRITERIA: ASSESSMENT OF DEFICITS

'. Before submitting the information required in implementing Article 103(3) of Title II of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992, Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in Title II, Article 2, which report shall form the basis of any submission to the Council and Commission in pursuit of their responsibilities under Article 103 and 104c of the Treaty.'.—[Mr. Andrew Smith.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 12—Convergence criteria: assessment of deficits—


'. Before submitting the information required in implementing Article 103(3) of Title II of the Treaty on European Union signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992, Her Majesty's Government shall report to Parliament for its approval an assessment of the medium term economic and budgetary position in relation to public investment expenditure and to the social, economic and environmental goals set out in Title II, Article 2, which report shall form the basis of any submission to the Council and Commission in pursuit of their responsibilities under Article 103 and 104c of the Treaty.'.
New clause 32—Exchange rates (report)—
'In implementing its obligations under Article 3a of Title II, Her Majesty's Government shall submit a report for consideration by Parliament before it initiates the action required to conduct a single exchange rate policy based on the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates; and the conclusions of Parliament on this report shall be submitted for information to the Council of Finance Ministers.'.

Amendment No. 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 28, after 'Parliament', insert
'and unless, pursuant to the goals set out in Article 2 of the Treaty of European Union, signed at Maastricht on 7th February 1992 the following convergence criteria have been achieved:

(i) sustainable and non-inflationary growth: this will be apparent from an average rate of inflation in the Community over the latest preceding three years of not more than 1·5 per cent. and an average rate of growth in Community GDP over the same period of 3 per cent.
(ii) a high level of employment: this will be apparent from an average rate of unemployment over the latest preceding three years of not more than 5 per cent. both in the Community and in the United Kingdom.
(iii) economic and social cohesion: this will be apparent from the following:

(a) no Community region will have experienced an average GDP per capita income of less than 65 per cent. of the Community average over the latest preceding three years; and in the United Kingdom no region will have experienced an average GDP per capita income of less than 80 per cent. of the Community average over the same period.
(b) the rate of unemployment in each region of the United Kingdom shall not itself have varied by + / - 2 per cent. of the national rate of unemployment.
(c) the total Community Budget demonstrably used to fund such convergence shall be equivalent to 3 per cent. of Community GDP in each of the latest preceding three years.'.

Mr. Smith: The purpose of the amendment is simple and threefold. The first is to make clear the priority that the Opposition believe should attach to article 2 of the Maastricht treaty in setting the goals of the Community in general. Secondly, it makes clear the particular relevance of the provisions to any acceptable assessment of convergence in particular. Thirdly, it makes clear the importance that we attach to accountability to this Parliament when information is given to the Commission in the co-ordination of economic policy.
As most hon. Members will by now be aware, article 2 states:
The Community shall have as its task, by establishing a common market and an economic and monetary union and by implementing the common policies or activities referred to in Articles 3 and 3a, to promote throughout the Community a harmonious and balanced development of economic activities, sustainable and non-inflationary growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and of social

protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.
Those are eminently desirable goals and I hope that few hon. Members, certainly on the Opposition Benches, would disagree that Britain and the whole of Europe would be much better off if economic policy were consistently and energetically devoted to their realisation.
It is also worth emphasising the extent to which article 2 of the Maastricht treaty represents a big step forward on the article 2 objectives as set out in the existing European Community treaties. The Maastricht treaty has added in as goals
sustainable … growth respecting the environment, a high degree of convergence of economic performance, a high level of employment and social protection … and economic and social cohesion".
The inclusion of those objectives in the Maastricht treaty is greatly to be welcomed by democratic socialists, just as it probably explains why certain Conservative Members want to reject the treaty, including article 2.
A significant part of the debate on the economic aspects of the treaty in Committee turned on how far the article 2 objectives really were the defining goals of the Community and how far they could or would in practice be overridden by other provisions such as article 3a on the co-ordination of economic policies, article 104c on excessive deficits and articles 105 to 108a on monetary policy.
The Labour party is concerned about the interpretation and implementation of those provisions. We want to see the Community work as an engine of sustainable growth to benefit the many, not as an instrument of deflation to benefit only a few. The key resolution at our party conference last year made it clear that we see the treaty as far from perfect, but at the same time regard it as the best agreement that can currently be achieved.
The answer to those who claim that article 2 does not really offer much by way of reassurance is, first, that article 2 defines the task of the Community. It sets the political and legal context in which the rest of the treaty's provisions must be applied. That central role is not something that we simply imagine; it is there in the treaty, repeated in articles 3, 3a and 102a, which states:
Member States shall conduct their economic policies with a view to contributing to the achievement of the objectives of the Community, as defined in Artice 2".
Secondly—a point which came up time and again—

Mr. Rowlands: Does my hon. Friend understand the difference between "with a view to contributing" and the imperatives of monetarism in the rest of the clauses?

Mr. Smith: I hear what my hon. Friend says. I simply repeat that article 2 says that those are the tasks of the treaty and the other articles refer to the importance to be attributed to those particular goals. New clause 1 seeks further to reinforce that process. I have already made it clear to the House that the Labour party is concerned about the interpretation of the economic clauses in the Bill. Later, I shall reinforce certain other concerns that we have in that respect.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Smith: I shall give way in a moment.
I emphasise a point that came up repeatedly in Committee, and that is that the Maastricht treaty provides a framework through which economic, political and social


co-operation and integration will be pursued. The use to which that framework will be put, the specific policies that member states and Community institutions will agree to, will and must depend on political will and on the balance of political power and argument in the Community as it develops and at such time as further decisions on its development are taken.
My third point in response to those who have doubts about the importance and impact of article 2 is that we have in the House the opportunity to signal, through our amendments to the Bill, how we wish on behalf of our constituents the treaty to be interpreted and how we wish its provisions to be operated.
As many hon. Members have found, the criteria for the acceptability of amendments as being in order on the Bill are limiting, but we can already claim modest successes on the economic front in forcing the acceptance of Committee stage new clause 1, now clause 3, which secures greater accountability for the Bank of England than exists at the moment; in winning Committee stage new clause 2, now clause 4, requiring a comparative assessment of the United Kingdom's economic performance; and in incorporating Committee stage amendment No. 420 on co-ordination of economic policies and the importance of ECOFIN.
Those are in addition to the notable victory on the Committee of the Regions and the acceptance of new clause 74, now clause 5. That is a measure of the effort that the Opposition have put into the Bill and the support that we have been able to win from other quarters for the amendments that we sought.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): As the hon. Gentleman is going through the various amendments that have been agreed to during the Bill's passage, the effect of many of which is to add a stage that allows for parliamentary consideration of different aspects of our relationship with the Community, this may be an appropriate moment for me to tell the House and the hon. Gentleman that the Government are minded to accept new clause 1 subject to a few technical manuscript amendments which are available to the House and which the hon. Gentleman has seen, the effect of which is simply to correct some drafting in the new clause in line with the corrections that are provided for in an Opposition amendment that we are due to consider later.

Mr. Smith: I welcome the Minister's concession, which marks a further victory for Labour and for the common-sense arguments that we made for increasing accountability to Parliament in respect of the treaty's implementation. It also reinforces the view held on this side of the House that the treaty's economic provisions must work towards co-ordinated growth, not deflation or monetarism.

Mr. Salmond: My attempt to intervene a few seconds ago has probably been overtaken by events. I am sympathetic to new clause 1, but it struck me that if it was harmless enough the Government would accept it. The fact that they have confirms my suspicions.

Mr. Smith: We enter a tempting period. As the Government are accepting our amendments as fast as we can table them, we might be tempted to push through a few more and improve the Bill still further.
New clause 1 confers real benefits in respect of interpreting the way in which the treaty is implemented in

relation to the United Kingdom economy and to the goals for employment, growth and equity that we believe are so enormously important.
The Government's further concession is an admission of defeat. I do not believe that the Financial Secretary would accept our amendments if he believed for one moment that the Government had enough votes in the House this evening to defeat them. The Government do not have the votes, any more than they have the arguments.

Mr. Dorrell: I regret the hon. Gentleman's reception for the Government's attitude. We share with members of the Labour Front Bench, and I hope with every right hon. and hon. Member, a desire to see parliamentary scrutiny provided in every appropriate situation. We agree with the Opposition that we have an appropriate opportunity to include a new phase of parliamentary scrutiny.

Mr. Smith: I admire the straight-faced way in which the Financial Secretary made those remarks. I look forward to the Government accepting the force of our arguments and the logic of parliamentary arithmetic in respect of amendment No. 2.
The longer the Committee stage continued, and given the Government's further concession today, the larger the proportion of the Bill that was effectively written by the Labour party rather than by the Government. Even before today's concession, Labour's word count share was 50 per cent., and the concession takes it over 50 per cent. Our victory on amendment No. 2 will take the figure higher still.

Mr. Rowlands: Has amendment No. 3, which has some substance to it, the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench?

Mr. Smith: As there is not to be a vote on amendment No. 3, I am not sure that I would be in order to respond.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not a Third Reading debate. The House is considering a group of new clauses and amendments, to which the hon. Gentleman should restrict himself. They offer plenty of scope.

Mr. Smith: I will do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have considerable sympathy with the spirit behind amendment No. 3, but given that we will not vote on it, any response would be hypothetical. I have two reservations about that amendment. One is the provision that it makes for inflation to average 1·5 per cent. over three years. That could be an excessively deflationary—some would say even monetarist—target.
Also, that amendment states that an amount equivalent to 3 per cent. of Community gross domestic product would demonstrably have to be applied to social and economic cohesion. Important though they are, 3 per cent. would represent a doubling and close to a trebling of the existing proportion of Community GDP spent on the whole EC budget. That would take us to the fringes of Euro-fedralism, to which my hon. Friend is very hostile.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend indicated that he believed that 1·5 per cent. inflation is rather deflationary, if that is not a contradiction. As article 2 refers to non-inflationary goals, and as my hon. Friend is very keen on that article, does he not agree that 1·5 per cent. inflation is better than zero inflation?

Mr. Smith: That criticism is one that we apply to the treaty's convergence criteria as well as to amendment No. 3. The difficulty is in choosing specific figures and then insisting that they must apply in any one year. Of course we want non-inflationary growth, and we see no advantage in inflation. However, to argue arbitrarily that, regardless of wider economic circumstances, one could not go above inflation of 1·5 per cent. and still progress towards economic and monetary union could prove deflationary in effect.
Bearing in mind your advice, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make my arguments in favour of new clause 1.

Sir Russell Johnston: Given that the Government have accepted new clause 1, would it not be a good thing if we were all to stop talking about it?

Mr. Smith: In view of the extent of our deliberations, that is a tempting proposal. It provides an opportunity to quote a nice item from the diary in this morning's issue of The Guardian:
Before staggering back into the quagmire of the Maastricht debate, the House of Commons could take a lesson fom the Ursuline Sisters. They organised an international conference on Europe, based at their convent at Westgate-on-Sea, clearly conscious that it's a subject on which tempers and patience fray. The programme for the main day went: '11.15 am—Herr Karl Wimberger, Principal of Friedrich-Spee-Kolleg, Neuss, Germany, The European Dimension in Education; 12.15 pm—lunch; 1.30 pm—short walk by the sea'.
Perhaps the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) is inviting the House to move as quickly as possible and to take a short walk by the sea. Nevertheless, it is important to make the arguments for new clause 1—though perhaps not at great length—and for right hon. and hon. Members to hear them and to contribute their own views. Otherwise, Government acceptance of an Opposition amendment will merely serve as a way of ending a debate, which would do a disservice to democracy, which figures so largely in concerns expressed by right hon. and hon. Members about the treaty and its implementation.
My right hon. and hon. Friends and some Conservative Members expressed anxiety about the convergence criteria, and fear that the provisions in respect of deficits are open to unduly restrictive interpretation. There is no doubt in my mind that the inclusion in the treaty of particular reference values—the ratio of public debt to GDP and the ratio of Government deficit to GDP—goes beyond the sort of framework provisions appropriate to the treaty. It is an attempt to introduce a specific policy and one redolent of particular economic theories prevailing, although not generally accepted, at the time when the treaty was drawn up.
There is no doubt in my mind that, in so far as the balance of Government income and expenditure is a matter of Community interest, it would have been much better for it to have been left to agreement between the member states, taking account of the changing circumstances of the Community, under the general co-ordination and provisions of article 103, rather than inserting specific targets in the treaty. From the Labour party's point of view, an inflexible interpretation of the provisions is unacceptable and must be avoided.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Surely my hon. Friend is implying that if we have this position we should oppose these criteria. The national executive said that convergence has to be in real terms—a real convergence of the power, strength and productivity of economies. As these entirely fallacious deflationary convergence criteria have been written into the treaty—and as my hon. Friend wants to interpret them—how can we interpret what is quite specific? Should not we reject it because it is so specific?

Mr. Smith: The case that I am making is that the interests of the people we represent—and, indeed, of Europe as a whole—demand a flexible interpretation of these provisions. As my hon. Friend is well aware, and as I have already quoted, the Labour party's policy, decided by conference, was that the treaty is far from perfect but is the best agreement currently achievable.
It is in that spirit that we have made it clear that we have no wish to wreck the Maastricht process. That does not stop us from expressing apprehension about those parts of the treaty which cause us particular concern, and this is one such part. That is why I underline that we are concerned that there should not be an inflexible, mechanistic, rigid interpretation of these provisions.
We can call in aid, of course, the wording of the treaty, which states in article 104c that in assessing deficits
The report of the Commission shall also take into account whether the government deficit exceeds government investment expenditure and take into account all other relevant factors, including the medium term economic and budgetary position of the Member State.
Of course, in the present circumstances, it would be sheer folly to attempt rigidly to enforce a year-on-year limit of 3 per cent. on Government deficits.
I think that my hon. Friends accept that it is quite reasonable to seek to contain the scale of the average Government deficit across the economic cycle. If debt repayments are not to eat into the resources available for other public expenditure, a sustainable relationship between Government debt and economic growth is essential over the medium term. That is quite different from saying that in any one year the deficit must be kept to 3 per cent. That would completely ignore the important dual role that a sustainable deficit has, first, in funding investment expenditure with an economic return of benefit to the economy as a whole and, secondly, in the operation of counter-cyclical policy where one would expect, and in all probability need, the deficit to be larger in the depth of a recession than at the peak of a recovery.
Indeed, my right hon. and learned Friend the Leader of the Opposition said in his speech in Paris on 15 January,
It would also … be misguided for the European Community as a whole to make the same mistake of seeking arbitrarily to curb public deficits at a time when the European economy is poised on the verge of recession. There is clearly a danger that this may occur if the fiscal deficit rules of the Maastricht Treaty are rigidly interpreted. An excessively strict application of the protocol which specifies a target of 3 per cent. for government deficits would compound the existing financial squeeze which has been caused by high interest rates in Germany.
If all member states of the EC tried to satisfy the 3 per cent. target by the end of 1996, for example … the combined effect on total EC output would be a reduction of over 2 per cent. This is obviously absurd and simply not feasible for a majority of member states of the Community. I would argue very strongly that the three per cent. rule must exclude all


deficit-funded capital investment and take full account of the state of the economic cycle in each member state and in particular trends in unemployment. The Community will need to clarify these points if it is to avoid adding a fiscal choke to the monetary grip that has already sharply reduced growth in the European economy.

Dr. Roger Berry: I am in sympathy with that statement, but is there not a problem? My hon. Friend urges us to exercise flexibility on certain criteria. In Germany, politicians from the major parties can sell monetary union to their electorates only on condition that exactly those criteria are rigidly applied. Does that not mean that we must look at what the treaty says, not at what it might say?
My hon. Friend may wish to consider the possibility that, for the reason that I have outlined, monetary union is not politically feasible. If that is the case, ought we not to say so?

Mr. Smith: If it turns out not to be feasible, progress towards it will be considerably slower than the target set out in the Maastricht treaty. Indeed, the wording in the treaty provides for that to happen. I do not dispute my hon. Friend's argument that there are tensions between different member states and between different parties within member states as well as between parties in each member state in regard to the precise interpretations to be placed on the treaty.
I think that that reinforces the thrust of my argument that the issue ultimately turns on political will, arid on winning the political argument in Europe, so that progress towards economic and monetary union can be accompanied by real convergence. That was the spirit behind amendment No. 3. It should also work in favour of the high levels of employment and equity that my hon. Friends and I are so keen to achieve.
It is not as though the treaty entirely pointed towards the deflationary nightmares that my hon. Friends rightly fear. I have already reinforced the prime importance of the task that article 2 sets the Community. For example, the protocol on convergence itself must be rewritten and agreed between the member states before the provisions are given operational definition. There is scope in the Maastricht process for us to ensure, jointly with those who think similarly in the rest of Europe, that we use this process to realise the undoubted benefits of economic co-operation, and do not—by sticking mechanistically to specific criteria—commit the folly of plunging Europe more deeply into recession.

Mr. Spearing: Is my hon. Friend saying that the figures clearly laid down in the treaty, which provide little scope for interpretation, are not to be taken too seriously. and should be considered in the spirit of what is feasible in time? If he is saying that, is he not devaluing international treaties, and—as he may wish to do—devaluing the rigidity or scope of EC legislation as a whole? Customarily, statute in this country has been looked at rather differently.

Mr. Smith: I am attempting to point to those parts of the treaty that reinforce the case that we are making for a flexible interpretation of these criteria. I point again to article 104c. Paragraph 3 of that article says that
The report of the Commission shall also take into account whether the government deficit exceeds government

investment expenditure and take into account all other relevant factors, including the medium term economic arid budgetary position of the Member State.
It is through those provisions, jointly with those in Europe who are similarly concerned about these matters, that I suggest that we can work to ensure that common sense prevails.
I underline also the fact that when people say, "No, don't sign the treaty and don't be part of the process of continuing economic co-operation in anything like this form" the consequences for employment in this country, if their view prevailed, would be serious indeed.

Mr. Ron Leighton: What my hon. Friend seems to be saying is that the provisions of the treaty leading to the single currency are so absurd that they are unlikely to be workable in the time scale laid down. Does not my hon. Friend realise that the attempt to get there will do great damage, that it has already destroyed one socialist Government in France and that it is likely soon to destroy another socialist Government in Spain?

Mr. Smith: My argument is that slavish adherence to figures drawn up when a particular economic philosophy prevailed at the time that the treaty was negotiated should not be allowed to deflect European Governments, public opinion or parties within Europe from taking the path of what I believe to be economic common sense.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although what the hon. Gentleman said about article 104c is correct—that flexibility is provided for—the plain fact is that article 104c also provides that if the Commission disagrees and says, "Sorry, we don't like flexibility", it could present a report to the Council and the Council, by a majority, could tell us what to do. If the hon. Gentleman looks at page 20 of the treaty, he will see that the article also provides for the Commission to say, "We're going to make an assessment, because we think you're wrong." The Council can not only tell us what to do; it can fine us and it can stop us using the European Investment Bank. It is all there in paragraph 11 of article 104c. There is no doubt about this. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, although there is flexibility over assessment, the Commission can refer the United Kingdom to the Council and that the Council, by a majority, can do terrible things to the United Kingdom, even though we may think that there is this flexibility?

Mr. Smith: What the hon. Gentleman overlooks is the fact that these provisions are triggers for reports that have to be further discussed. They are part of an evaluation as to whether convergence has taken place sufficiently for economic and monetary union to happen. It is not a question of us having to do x, y or z. The article says that these are matters that are to be taken into account. The purpose of amendment No. 3 and new clause 1 is to set forth more clearly the concerns of this House that should prevail as this process takes place. We believe that the House, by means of this amendment and otherwise, should make it clear that we expect the British Government to interpret the application of these criteria in the light of the medium-term economic and budgetary position, in relation to both public capital investment expenditure and the laudable economic, social and environmental goals that are set out in article 2.
We do not believe that this assessment should simply be left to the Government. In amendment No.3 we propose that the House of Commons should have the opportunity to approve, or otherwise, the submission that the Government make to the Commission and to the European Council. Under the terms of new clause 1, that would apply not only to the assessment of the deficit criteria, which has preoccupied us so much in the debate so far, but to the co-ordination of economic policy in general.
In addition to the arguments that I have advanced relating to deficits, there is the wider, and important, principle of accountability to this House regarding economic policy. Crucial to the operation of the new clause is its reference to information supplied under article 13, paragraph 3, and the inclusion of the word "any" in the sixth line of new clause 1.
Article 103, paragraph 3, says that
In order to ensure closer co-ordination of economic policies and sustained convergence of the economic performances of the Member States, the Council shall, on the basis of reports submitted by the Commission, monitor economic developments in each of the Member States and in the Community as well as the consistency of economic policies with the broad guidelines referred to in paragraph 2, and regularly carry out an overall assessment.
For the purpose of this multilateral surveillance, Member States shall forward information to the Commission about important measures taken by them in the field of their economic policy and such other information as they deem necessary.
That article thereby refers to all the information that ECOFIN requires in order to co-ordinate the economic policies of member states and the requirements on member states to submit key information about the economic measures that they are taking.
The inclusion, therefore, of the word "any" in new clause 1 means that all submissions to the Commission and Council, whether under the treaty requirements of general co-ordination of economic policy or under the excessive deficit procedure, would have to be based on reports taking account of the medium-term budgetary position, public investment and the article 2 goals. Those reports would need to receive the approval of this House.

Mr. Salmond: The hon. Gentleman lays stress on the precise wording of new clause 1. The Minister said earlier that he had prepared some drafting amendments. Does the hon. Gentleman have them? If he does, why was he so surprised that the Minister accepted the new clause? If he does not have the amendments, would this not be a good time to ask what those drafting amendments are, since he lays such stress on the precise wording of the clause? Does the hon. Gentleman have the amendments, and what are they?

Mr. Smith: I have received a sheet of paper with Government amendments upon it. I had no indication from the Government that they intended to accept the new clause until the Financial Secretary said so. I was a little puzzled that no point of order was raised at the beginning of the debate, so I was by no means certain that the new clause would be accepted.
The effect of the drafting amendment is to change references to the treaty signed at Maastricht on 7 February to the treaties establishing the European communities. It is a technical change, which is very much in line with the amendments that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I

have tabled in a later grouping, to bring all references to the treaty in the Bill into line by the use of the same language. It does not alter the substance of our amendments. It certainly does not omit the word "any" in new clause 1, upon which, as the hon. Gentleman said, I place considerable weight.
Those reports would need to receive the approval of this House. Therefore, new clause 1 provides important safeguards, both over the interpretation of economic policy in the light of the treaty and over the democratic rights of this House. I hope that it will command the support of the House, which I hope will also be pleased to accept the Government's concession that they are unable to defeat either the arguments or the arithmetic and are therefore accepting that the new clause is to be part of the treaty. It will serve both the House and economic policy relating to Europe well. It will also enhance the effectiveness of that policy and, most important of all, democratic accountability.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I wish to make three general points and one in all sincerity to the Labour party. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) spoke courteously, kindly and fairly, but, as he is basing a great deal of his hope and optimism on article 104c, I hope that he will reread paragraph 11.
Although it is true that the Commission can have regard to many factors—that Britain has had a bad harvest, but is trying very hard, for example—if it comes to a different conclusion, it can put a report to the Council of Ministers and by a majority—not unanimously—the Council can instruct Britain to do all kinds of terrible things and can impose fines of an appropriate size.
We should give the Government credit for having been very clever in obtaining the exemptions set out on pages 114, 115 and 116. However, once the Commission has made a report, all kinds of terrible things can happen. Article 104c(1) states:
As long as a Member State fails to comply with a decision taken in accordance with paragraph 9"—
by a majority vote—
the Council may decide to apply or … intensify one … of the following measures:

—to require the Member State to publish additional information … before issuing bonds and securities;
—to invite the European Investment Bank to reconsider its lending policy;
—to require the Member State to make a non-interestbearing-deposit of an appropriate size"
and
to impose fines of an appropriate size.
The Labour party seems to be carried away with economic union because it believes that there is an element of flexibility. I hope that Labour Members will reread the treaty and accept that, sadly, flexibility is not as great for all member states as they believe. It is certainly easier for Britain because we have won many exemptions—

Mr. Shore: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that, even at stage 2, we could suffer the very damaging effect of an adverse public report on the state of the British economy, long before the penal provisions relating to excess deficits come into effect? We all know how important confidence is in currencies and markets, and such a public report rebuking a particular member state would be designed to destabilise its Government.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is right. In fairness, one must point out that the protocol on page 115



refers to article 104c(1) from which the Government have won an exemption. However, the Commission can persuade the majority of member states to say, "Nothing doing. It is too bad, get lost."
Secondly, I hope that people will appreciate the fact that we must understand the obligation on member states to rejoin fixed exchange rates or the exchange rate mechanism. The Government have been successful in obtaining many exemptions. What I have read corresponds with what many people in the world of banking, many lawyers, accountants and clever people think, which is that Britain has an obligation to move towards rejoining the ERM and fixed exchange rates. However, such an obligation appears to be an obligation on member states aiming at stage 3. It would be helpful if the Government would make it abundantly clear, irrespective of' their policy, whether, in their view, the treaty imposes an obligation to work towards fixed exchange rates or the ERM. We know—

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend has invited the Government to make it clear whether, in their view, there is an obligation under the treaty to work towards fixed exchange rates or membership of the ERM. The answer is no.

Sir Teddy Taylor: That is excellent news. I am glad that the Minister, for whom I have a high regard, has made that abundantly clear. I therefore hope that there is a possibility that the Government will accept, even if only in principle, new clause 32 which states that before the Government initiate
the action required to conduct a single exchange rate policy based on the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates",
they will submit a report to Parliament, that Parliament shall discuss it and that it will then be sent to the Council of Finance Ministers.

Mr. Dorrell: That is exactly the Government's position. That is why provision for a further Act of Parliament before we move to stage 3 of economic and monetary union was made in the original text of the Bill.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am well aware of what happens at stage 3, but if the Government decided to move towards fixed exchange rates or to rejoin the ERM, would they, in addition to making the helpful concession that the Minister has just announced, state clearly—as new clause 32 states—that there would be a debate in the House of Commons and that the outcome of the debate would be reported to the European Commission? It is very important that the House of Commons should have another go at discussing the ERM or fixed exchange rates before we take such a fundamental step.
I agree with the many people who believe that fixed exchange rates and the ERM amount to monstrous economic lunacy. If 12 countries agree to fix their exchange rates together, many will have to create artificial prosperity or artificial depression. Sadly, most countries in Europe are having to create artificial depression. When Britain was unofficially in the ERM, under the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, we had to create artificial prosperity.
If the Government are to move back to fixed exchange rates, we ask that Parliament should at least have the opportunity to decide that and to express a point of view. The sending of a report to the EC would have no legislative consequence. As a gesture of good will, the Minister has


accepted Labour's new clause and made a very helpful and reassuring statement. It would he helpful and would reassure many people in the Conservative party and some doubters in the Labour party if the Government could simply state that, before a specific policy was made to return to the fixed exchange rates of the ERM, irrespective of whether there is any particular obligation, there would be a debate in the House and that the House would be able to reach a decision. If the Government were to agree to that, it would remove much of the misunderstanding of and lack of sympathy with the Government's position. I therefore hope that it will be possible for the Minister to say that, before we make such a move, there will be a debate in the House.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend realise that his suggestion is extraordinary because it would mean that before the Government changed their monetary or exchange rate policy there should be a public debate in the House? Does he not realise the consternation that would be caused in the markets if we debated here whether to rejoin the ERM, on what terms and so on? Does he not appreciate that the conduct of monetary policy must therefore be left in the hands of the executive branch or—better still in my view—in those of an independent central bank? Such decisions can be announced to the world only when they have effectively been taken.

9 pm

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am sorry, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend. I do not speak as a parish pump populist; I am also a director of a bank with a good record of success and profits, and a director of a big insurance company which is also successful. Bearing in mind the additional unemployment, the misery and the costs brought about by the ERM decision—regardless of the details of how we may have entered the ERM at the wrong rate or at the wrong time—I believe that the vast majority of my constituents would be horrified if the Government decided to go back in, no matter what the clever bankers may say. My hon. Friend should remember that those clever bankers in whom he seems to have such confidence are the same people who said that if we joined the ERM we would have stability and growth. In fact, we had neither stability nor growth; we had misery, extra unemployment and huge extra costs. We must remember that all the money that the Government lost when we were trying to maintain our position within the ERM will have to be paid by my hon. Friend's constituents, and by my constituents, too. Many people have lost their houses and their jobs because of that appalling situation.
No matter what the details may be of how we should work out ERM parity, and how we should make the decision, surely the House of Commons should express its opinion on such a matter of policy before the Government make that further move.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I fear that my hon. Friend is confusing our membership of the ERM with the regime of high interest rates that would have been necessary anyway to cope with the inflationary problem that we faced two or three years ago. High interest rates were necessary to get inflation out of the economy and to re-establish stability and the possibility of the growth that we are now beginning to enjoy again, so they would have been


required in any event. Our membership of the ERM created the framework that gave additional credibility to that monetary policy at that time.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am astonished to hear my hon. Friend say that, because 99·9 per cent. of people in Britain accept that interest rates were high in order to maintain an artificial exchange rate. If that is not true, why did interest rates come down and down the moment that the artificial exchange rate was abolished? Ministers are saying in by-election campaigns, "Isn't it wonderful that Britain has the lowest exchange rates in Europe? Isn't that great? Isn't it wonderful that we now have an outlook for growth?" —and I am sure that the Financial Secretary would say the same thing. I am delighted about all that, but we should appreciate that the reason why that is so, and why poor old Germany and France are in such a horrendous mess now, is that they are still stuck with that accursed policy and we have managed to escape from it.
We can argue about the details, but if my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) thinks that interest rates were high simply because we were trying to choke inflation out of the economy, I am afraid that he is wrong. The high interest rates were required largely to try to maintain the artificial exchange rates. My hon. Friend has his views, and clearly he thinks that whatever happens, it will be good. Let us hope that his continual optimism will reassure him when he considers the appalling economic situation that we face. However, I hope that he will accept that there are differing views, and that some people may think that he is not 100 per cent. right.
It would be a terrific contribution to confidence not only in the Government but in the Opposition and in sterling if only the Government would say, "Before we decide to return to fixed exchange rates we shall have another full-scale debate, a decision will be made, and that will be that." That would be terrific, in view of the clear specific undertaking that the Minister has so kindly given that we are under no obligation under the Maastricht treaty to rejoin fixed exchange rates and the ERM.
My final point is about new clause 12, and the worrying philosophy under Maastricht of aiming for noninflationary growth. I fear that that will become a deliberate policy of creating unemployment. I am afraid that all the signs are that paragraph 2 of article 3a will not encourage growth. There is no doubt that it will be a foundation not for growth but for higher unemployment. Professor Ormerod of the Henley Centre for Forecasting goes further and says that price stability is a recipe for unemployment.
The German people, understandably, are obsessed with inflation. I do not blame them for that. It must be a terrible worry for them to look back to the 1930s and see what happened to their country and their economy then. But because of that they seem to have an obsession, and the treaty sentences Britain and all the other states in the EC to follow the German policy of extremly low levels of inflation. I do not believe that low inflation is necessarily a basis for growth; unfortunately, the obsession with low inflation will create massive unemployment.
It is easy for us to cite figures on unemployment and inflation when the world is going through a particular problem, but there is no doubt that in countries such as

Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Belgium, the impact on unemployment and on inflation has been worse than in most other countries.
We could help the country if we adopted a policy that took all factors into account and faced the need to stimulate employment to the maximum possible level, while trying to keep inflation relatively low. At present, the Government are in a terrible financial mess, not because they are silly and nasty people but because they face horribly high unemployment. The costs of 3 million unemployed, apart from the misery and degradation for the people involved, are horrendous for the Government, who are having to borrow vast sums simply to meet those costs.
We need an economic policy that concentrates on increasing employment and reducing unemployment. I am genuinely terrified that if we go for the policy set out clearly in the Maastricht treaty—making the control of inflation the basic sole end of economic policy—we shall head into a period of high and rising unemployment. That will not be good for the people of Britain, for the happiness of families or for the Government as they try to control borrowing.
My remarks are not intended as an attack on Tory or Labour. The Front Benches of both parties think that, by and large, the Maastricht deal is good. Labour Members could be deluding themselves into believing that Maastricht will provide flexibility. That will not be the case. I hope that great thought will be given to the Maastricht obsession with controlling inflation and that the spirit of new clause 12 will be considered by the Government before they make final decisions.
I am glad that the House has been given an opportunity to examine my new clause 32. I have had the pleasure of having two proposals considered on Report, though I appreciate that we shall not vote on the issue. It would remove a great deal of fear in Britain about unemployment if the Government said, "Before we return to the absurd ERM policy, we shall have a rethink and discuss the matter again."
Putting aside detailed notes that I have been given, I conclude by reminding hon. Members of what is happening in politics. I am not seeking to score points when I say that the Government are unpopular just now. That is a well-known fact and there is no point hiding it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Thanks to you.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Lady is entitled to her view. I hope that she will also accept that—no thanks to me —the Opposition are not terribly popular either, even though a number of people may vote for them as a means of protesting against the Government.
People are saying that they are not happy with what the major parties are doing economically or with their policies to resolve the present terrible problems of unemployment, misery and lack of growth. It would be tragic if both Front Benches decided to go ahead with a policy based on obsession with inflation. That would not solve the basic problem of unemployment. I hope that the Government will give the clear commitment for which I ask, which is to have a rethink and debate of the ERM and reconsider the whole issue surrounding the principle of non-inflationary growth.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall speak to amendment No. 3, which has been grouped with new clause 1, which the


Government have accepted. I regret that amendment No. 3 will not be called for a Division and obviously we must accept the decision of Madam Speaker on that. It would have been interesting, had it been selected for a vote, to see the attitude of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) who, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, said he would be coming along with us in spirit.
Before dealing with the amendment in some detail, I echo the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). There is great danger now from a coalition of an entrenched economic policy in western Europe. In political terms, I suspect that it will do more damage to the parties on the left than to those on the right. Indeed, the damage is already in evidence, with some tragic consequences for all to see, in Spain, in France, in Germany even and perhaps in Italy. That entrenched coalition of economic policy is extremely dangerous and may lead to considerable upheavals in the not too distant future.
Amendment No. 3 was tabled in response to some debates in Committee when several of my hon. Friends chided those of us who are described as Euro-sceptics by saying that article 2 of title II of the treaty was a splendid article. They said that when we made all our speeches about doom and gloom, and excessive deficits, we should read article 2. Time and again, my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East has hinged his economic arguments on the wording of article 2.
When some of us spoke of the difficulty of achieving sustainable and non-inflationary growth we were criticised and asked what was wrong with those aims. Of course, there is nothing wrong with them. When we said that the treaty said nothing about unemployment, we were told that article 2 mentioned high levels of unemployment, as if the two were somehow similar. As a result, we were stung into making our response and tried to draft some figures in amendment No. 3. I do not believe that we should have figures entrenched in the treaty, but some already are and it is only right that we should put some flesh on the bare bones of article 2, which sets out the laudable aims with which I think we all agree.
On Second Reading my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who was then leader of the Opposition, rightly spoke about real convergence. When politicians or philosophers use the word "real" one has to be careful. We all know what we mean by real convergence. Apparently, for the Labour party, real convergence does not mean monetary or financial convergence, but the convergence of real things such as employment rates and regional disparities, which we want to remove. Those are matters of real convergence, which we understand.
Amendment No. 3 is an attempt—perhaps a clumsy one—to put figures on the bones of real convergence. The figures that we have chosen are fairly generous, as I shall try to show. They are not extremely arbitrary or completely unobtainable. They are obtainable if we believe in real convergence and are concerned with the goals and tasks set out in article 2.
Article 2 contains the phrase "sustainable and non-inflationary growth", which must be accompanied by a high level of employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East said that he was with us in spirit, but did not like the figure of 1·5 per cent. inflation, which he said was deflationary. As I tried to explain, that was an

interesting statement. Our amendment does not take the figure of 1·5 per cent. in isolation. It seeks 1·5 per cent. inflation, 3 per cent. growth and a 5 per cent. level of unemployment—that package is not and cannot he deflationary.
The Financial Secretary has previously said that he is also in favour of sustainable and non-inflationary growth. When he was asked to name the country in western Europe that had achieved that goal over the past few years, he said that possibly Germany had. Perhaps it has, just about, but if one considers other indicators, there are problems in Germany. But let us have sustainable and non-inflationary growth—some of us believe that western capitals can probably never achieve growth and non-inflation. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East interprets and reinterprets those words in different ways. To me, non-inflation means no inflation. The only measure of inflation that we have is the consumer price index or the retail prices index. Presumably, non-inflation means zero in terms of the retail prices index or the consumer price index. Therefore, non-inflationary growth means no inflation and growth. It does not mean zero growth, but zero inflation plus growth.
We were generous and did not include 0 per cent. inflation in the amendment, but 1·5 per cent. We thought that we should give the Community a chance of obtaining the 1·5 per cent. goal. At the same time, it is fair to expect some growth, and 3 per cent. growth with 1·5 per cent. inflation is not fantastic either. To believe in noninflationary growth it is necessary to believe in such figures. We are asking for that along with a 5 per cent. rate of unemployment. We are not asking for full employment; just 95 per cent. employment.
It is quite significant that the treaty does not talk about percentages of unemployment. The phrase high employment is really a monetarist term. As we tried to point out previously, it is a coded phrase. Anyone can agree on high levels of employment of 60 or 70 per cent. That represents 30 per cent. unemployment, but some people would say that it was a high level of employment. It all depends where we start.
The Labour party argument is that 5 per cent. unemployment or 95 per cent. employment is a high level. We do not expect to get back to full employment—those days are gone for a long time—but I should have thought that we would all agree that a level of 5 per cent. unemployment and 1·5 per cent. inflation and 3 per cent. growth would represent sustainable and non-inflationary growth.
9.15 pm
The amendment proposes that Britain shall not join a single currency or monetary union unless those factors have been achieved. Unless those indicators of real convergence were attained, we would not wish to join in a single currency or, by definition, economic and monetary union. I would hope that was Labour party policy.
I was rather disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East said that he was with us in spirit. I should have thought that he was with us in every word, every decimal point and every indicator in the amendment. Perhaps he is, but he is not allowed to say so.
I now turn to the phrase "economic and social cohesion". It can mean many things, but again it is fairly clear to Opposition Members. It is having levels of unemployment, levels of growth and per capita income


levels in different countries of western Europe which are more or less similar before we move towards a single, common currency.
We are concerned because we are in an extraordinary position. We shall have economic but not political union as there will be no central Government. I am not arguing for one and we shall return to the question of federalism, but there will be no central Government to adjust the consequences on the regions of a single currency. Therefore, we in the Labour party have to make sure that those criteria have been met before we enter the single currency. There will be no central Government, as we have in the United Kingdom, to create a mechanism to redress the problems caused by the centralisation of currency and a single currency.
We know what economic and social cohesion means. We are all in favour of it. The amendment seeks to set out certain figures. It states:
no Community region will have experienced an average GDP per capita income of less than 65 per cent. of the Community average over the latest preceding three years".
That figure of 65 per cent. is pretty low; it is lower than some of us would have liked, but again we were trying to be helpful and to bring the Government Front Bench, if not the Financial Secretary, along with us. I think that the Financial Secretary is beyond the pale on these matters. He is a secret monetarist and believes in non-inflationary growth.
I do not know what the figures are for Greece and parts of Portugal; they are probably lower. Even in Mid Glamorgan the figure is only 70 per cent. at the moment. So 65 per cent. is perhaps too generous. But, in the spirit of compromise, that is what was put down.
We go on to say that for the United Kingdom the per capita income should not be less than 80 per cent., which I think is fair. The figure for Wales is 77 or 78 per cent. We are the poorest region in Britain. In Northern Ireland it is less than that. In the Republic of Ireland it is below 70 per cent. What we are saying here is that until at least the poorest regions of the United Kingdom are up to 80 per cent. of the Community average—Britain is now 90 per cent. of the average—no Government, no responsible Government and certainly no Government of the left should sign up to a single currency with all its consequences for the constituencies represented by my hon. Friends and certainly those in south Wales and in the old industrial parts of the United Kingdom. So again the figures are fairly reasonable.
We go on to mention unemployment and to allow a band of plus or minus 2 per cent. in respect of the regions. That is again perhaps too generous, but at least it shows what we would wish before signing up to a single currency.
My hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) had a bit of fun with this. When we come to the budget, he tried to call us federalists. It is a terrible way to describe us. We are not federalists at all, and I do not think that he is. I have never believed that this is a federalist treaty. It is not, nor will it develop in that way. It is a treaty for institutions and will be dominated by them, but that is perhaps another argument and another debate.
The point that we are making here is that the Community budget, which is a convergence budget, excluding the common agricultural policy—because the CAP is not redistributive; it can be, but it is not, as regards the different regions—should be equivalent to only 3 per cent. of the Community gross domestic product. The CAP

takes about 1 per cent. If we add 3 per cent. to that, we are talking of a Community budget of 4 and possibly 5 per cent. Sir Donald McDougall, who has been quoted at length in the House, said in the 1970s, even before the accession to the treaty of Rome of Spain, Portugal and Greece, that it was necessary to have a Community budget of 7 per cent. of GDP to counteract the centralising forces caused by the structure of the Community. There was nothing federalist about that, nor is there about this. We' are saying that member states should agree that the Germans and the French should pay a lot more.

Mr. Dorrell: I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Will he clarify the position so that there is no doubt? Is he arguing that he would support a Community budget which was measured at 3 per cent. of Community GDP, the purpose of that expenditure being a wealth transfer from one member state in the Community to another? Is that a Community budget that he would support?

Mr. Davies: Yes. If we are moving towards economic and monetary union and if we are asked to accept the excessive deficits criteria and all the deflation and monetarism in this treaty, one must have it. It is not a question of whether I agree with it. I should have thought that everybody would agree with it. There we are, the hon. Gentleman is a secret mcnetarist. He is a hard man. He wants non-inflationary growth.
Yes, that is what we are saying. We should not move down that road, but, if we are to do so, it can only be done with this kind of contribution coming from countries such as France, Germany, Denmark and the richer countries of the European Community.

Mr. Bill Walker: Will the right hon. Gentleman draw the attention of my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench to the fact that we have operated a single currency and a single bank in the United Kingdom for nearly 300 years? That has required vast transfers of money and a mass movement of people from the poorer areas to the wealthier areas. The evidence is plain for anyone who wants to see it.

Mr. Davies: Indeed; that is the history of the 1930s and of the post-war period. Much as we may dislike the dominance of England, at least the safety valve that England offered the people of Scotland and south Wales existed—the cultures were not too different. The middle classes and the better educated professional classes may be able to move around Europe, but this sort of safety valve will not exist for people who work in factories and who live in poorer areas. Such a safety valve can exist only when there is a single Government of a homogenous country with a language and culture that are not too disparate.
I should like to turn the Financial Secretary's question round: is he saying that the Government would not make sure that the budget was of this size before moving to economic and monetary union?

Mr. Dorrell: I can certainly tell the House—the Government have done so on many occasions—that the Government do not regard the European Community budget as a kind of international social security budget. We support the development of a single market within the EC, because we see it as a most effective way of allowing


rich and poor areas of the Community to enhance their living standards by the creation of wealth in a competitive market.

Mr. Davies: We have a single market in the United Kingdom; there has been such a market including England and Scotland for 300 years, and including Wales for longer. There is no restriction on movement or on the type of goods that can be sold. That does not mean that we do not need a regional policy. Is the Minister really saying that in a single market such as the United Kingdom we do not need any way of redressing the balance as between the centre and the periphery? I hope not. Now the centre is moving further away—as is the periphery, by definition. That will certainly affect constituencies such as mine, others in Wales, and others west of the line drawn through the middle of Britain.

Mr. Dorrell: The right hon. Gentleman might like to speculate about the reasons for the simultaneous reduction, over the past 10 years, in total Government expenditure on regional policy and the reduction in the gap in living standards between Wales and Scotland on the one hand and England on the other.

Mr. Davies: Not so. I know that the gap between Wales and the south-east of England has increased. Wales is now the poorest region. Whereas in 1979 we were fourth or fifth poorest, now we are bottom of the British league. In future, the Thames corridor—the area around Tower Hamlets down to docklands—because it looks towards Europe, will he further developed. With the advent of the channel tunnel, the single currency and the single market, the south-east of England will gravitate towards Europe, but the rest of Britain will suffer unless there are effective mechanisms for the transfer of income and wealth.

Mr. Marlow: Is it worth the right hon. Gentleman's while asking the Minister whether he thinks that, despite our spending less on regional policy in the United Kingdom, and standards of living and prosperity having come closer together, it is right to support the cohesion fund in the European Community?

Mr. Davies: The cohesion fund was part of the Danegeld—perhaps Spanish geld would be a more suitable term—that had to be paid to the Prime Minister of Spain.

Mr. Shore: The Financial Secretary seems to be ruling out for economic and monetary union any large transfers via regional policy. The clear implication is that he does envisage a mass movement of people right across the European continent, including hundreds of thousands of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish people moving to the central areas of Europe in order to find work.

Mr. Davies: I am not sure what the Financial Secretary meant or how he intended to ameliorate the effects of a union towards the centre. Where there is union between different parts of any country, a government of the centre has to use strong mechanisms to try to redress the problems. In this case there will not be a government but just a few institutions which will not be democratic. Every country understands that. It happens in the United States and in every civilised country. I thought that the Financial Secretary would have accepted that.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and I are not far apart, but perhaps we are not

putting our views in the same way. Does the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) agree that in Scotland, for example, under the Goschen-Barnett formula, spending per capita is far greater? That is one of the main reasons why there has been a substantial narrowing of the differences between various parts of Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Davies: Regional transfers do not solve all regional problems, but they can ameliorate them. They are the only means governments have of ameliorating the centralising tendency.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the examples that he has given of the difficulties that might occur even if there were regional transfers. There may not be regional transfers, but even if there were, does he agree that the social and economic difference between Llanelli and London is much smaller than the similar geographical distance between London and Lille? If the centralising movement persists, there will be more difficulty between London and Lille than there has been between Llanelli and London.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the debate will not become so wide that it includes general regional policy. The amendments are specific.

Mr. Davies: I accept what you say, Madam Deputy Speaker. Economic and social cohesion is only one aspect of the amendment. I will shortly bring my remarks to a close. In the amendment we have listed the three main aspirations, goals or tasks contained in article 2—sustainable, non-inflationary growth, a high level of employment, and economic and social cohesion. Those are matters on which my right hon. and hon. Friends can agree. They are in article 2.
Before the United Kingdom considers adhering to a single currency and everything that that involves, those three matters should be dealt with. There may be an argument about the figures in the amendment, but we think that they are reasonable and sensible. If we had sustainable, non-inflationary growth, 95 per cent. employment, and economic and social cohesion we could consider rationally whether we wanted to sign up to a single currency. Until we reach that point, I do not believe that we can have a sensible debate. We owe that to our constituents, who remember what happened with the gold standard in the 1930s. Nothing changes in these matters. We are moving back to the thinking of the 1930s.
Europe has 17 million unemployed. Its growth rate is lower than that of Japan and America and far lower than that of the countries of the far east. Even without the Maastricht treaty, I cannot see how western Europe can perform as well; with the treaty it has not got a hope of doing so. That is why we hope to have the support of the Front Bench at least in word, if not in a vote. I hope that it will agree that the amendment is in accord with Labour party policy so that we may be united.

Mr. Leighton: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) has said, we are considering the convergence criteria of the treaty, which are appalling, certainly for a party of the left. They would cause great


damage. In an intervention, I said that they had already destroyed the socialist Government of France. Soon they may destroy the socialist Government of Spain.
There has been no detailed discussion of those criteria in the House. No one has said how wonderful they are, and the advocates of the treaty do not seek to justify them. The Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen said in effect that they did not need to take any notice of them, and seemed to be rather shame-faced about the criteria. If the Government had proposed these convergence criteria in domestic politics, our Front-Bench spokesmen would have recognised them for the monetarist nonsense they are and would have opposed them. However, the prefix "Euro" confers almost a religious sense that a proposal has to be accepted.
People have been silent about the criteria and only my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli has sought to debate them. However, they have been debated in the European Parliament, because the European Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy has written to the Select Committee on Employment of which I am a member. That committee wrote to us because of "continuously rising unemployment" and a
wish to inform the wider public of what is at stake if allowed to continue".
The committee said that it had been consulted by the Council of Ministers about the attainment of the progressive convergence of economic policies and performance during stage 1 of economic and monetary union, the ERM. It looked at how the ERM was faring not only in this country but in the rest of the Community. It said:
considering that the unemployment situation in the Community is becoming dramatic, with a rate of 11 per cent., or 17 million unemployed in 1993".
The situation is getting worse, because quite soon 20 million people in the Community will be unemployed. It continued:
considering that these official figures seriously underestimate the real unemployment situation in the Community, as many Member States have programmes that delay or restrict registration".
That means that, under stage 1 of the ERM, there are 20 million unemployed in the Community. Western Europe is the world's unemployed black spot. The committee says that the Community
risks sliding into recession, with growth forecasts being continually revised downward, most recently to 0·8 per cent. in 1993.
Matters have got worse since the committee told us that, because, under the ERM, western Europe faces zero growth.
The committee says that
an average growth rate of 2·5 per cent. is necessary just to stabilise unemployment;".
Unless that growth is attained, we cannot reduce unemployment, but it says that, even if that growth rate could be attained, it would take until 1996 to reduce unemployment to its 1990 level of 8·3 per cent.
Let us examine what happened at the Edinburgh conference. The committee says:
considering that the Edinburgh growth package is already incorporated in the Commission's growth forecasts, so that, without any additional measures, growth will continue to falter, and unemployment will continue to rise alarmingly.
The committee's letter then says:

considering that Japan and the USA have already taken substantial steps to boost recovery".
But what of the EC? It then touches upon a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. It says:
considering that the Community budget is so limited in size that it cannot serve to deliver the necessary growth stimulus".
The Community is doing nothing.
The letter then says:
considering Community industry is confronted with a continuing deterioration in competitiveness, due to relatively and absolutely high real interest rates, which cause European currencies to appreciate vis-a-vis our main competitors; according to the Annual Economic Report, the nominal effective exchange rates appreciated 10 percentage points between 1989 and 1992, causing a substantial loss of competitiveness to Community producers both in domestic and world markets, and consequently a continuous loss of market share over these years".
In other words, the high interest rates demanded by the ERM are crippling the European Community.
The committee's letter goes on to note with concern that the globalisation of world trade requires monetary co-operation at a world level, so even if the ERM were to work, that would not be enough. It says:
considering that extremely high real interest rates, combined with imminent recession, threaten to cause a deindustrialization of Europe, because it is difficult to find industrial investment that promises a return of more than 6 or 7 per cent.".
The committee is talking about the deindustrialisation of the whole continent because the European economy is being suffocated and strangled by the ERM.
The committee says:
considering that inflation is relatively low, and that the rate of capacity utilisation is now below 80 per cent., meaning that stimulation of the economy by lower interest rates or by other means might be absorbed without much immediate risk of inflation".
That is what should be done, but the ERM and the European Community treaty forbid that. The committee goes on to ask the Commission and the Council to recognise that unemployment and zero growth are a serious threat to the economic, social and political stability of the Community. That means that the convergence criteria, the ERM and stage 1 are crippling the Community, according to the Economic Committee of the European Parliament writing to the Select Committee on Employment.
That committee asks the Commission to draw up criteria for what it calls real convergence criteria. That means that the present convergence criteria are not real ones but only monetary criteria. They do not deal with wealth, output, labour costs, productivity, growth or investment. If the House agreed to the amendment spoken to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli, we would get real convergence.
The committee's letter asks
Commission and Council to take urgent steps to enable interest rates to come down to levels comparable with those of our main competitors; considers this necessary not only to reduce the costs of private borrowing and of public debt, but also to stop the deterioration in our international competitiveness … Asks ommission and Council to consider reaching agreement with the US and Japanese authorities on 'target zones' for currency parities of the Dollar, Yen and ECU or DM in order to bring more monetary stability, fairer competition and better economic and monetary co-ordination between the major economic powers".
This shows that the ERM does not bring currency stability, because it does not bring stability to currencies outside Europe.
The committee then talks about the excessive deficit criteria defined in the Maastricht treaty. It says that
increases in budget deficits resulting from economic recession should not in themselves lead to tax increases or public spending cuts which could damage long-term development and drive the European or national economy further into recession.
But that is exactly what is happening.
9.45 pm
The committee sent us an explanatory memorandum which states:

Governments are sticking to a narrow conception of the route to fulfilment of the convergence criteria of EMU, which could have been achieved in the high growth environment of the late eighties, but in the present environment of economic stagnation serves only to reinforce deflation, aggravate public finance problems and therefore threaten the goal of EMU. Changed circumstances demand a change in policy.
That is what we want—a change in policy. We want a change along the lines of the amendment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli. We know that we are not getting that, but a committee of the European Parliament tells us that that is necessary.
The central bank has one aim which is price stability. On that, the committee says:
Economic policy solely directed at monetary stability at a time of stagnating growth and accelerating unemployment reinforces the economic downturn and increases unemployment still further … unemployment will grow further, revenues will go down, unemployment-related expenditure will go up, increasing the discrepancy with the core EMU variables (3 per cent. budget deficit and 60 per cent. Government debt).
The committee goes on:
The least we can ask of our governments is that they should not make things worse.
But that is exactly what is happening as a result of stage 1 of economic and monetary union.
Here is something for us to think about. The committee says:
Paradoxically, Germany with its relatively high inflation rate has the lowest real interest rate in Europe … As a consequence of the monetary policy in the EMS framework, many Member States have lower inflation but consequently higher real interest-rates than the EMS-anchor currency, the Deutsch-Mark. France, for example, with a much healthier economic situation than Germany, has a prohibitive real interest rate of 7·7 per cent., while Germany has 4·6 per cent. The implication is clear: to have a lower inflation rate than Germany is no longer an advantage, and this perverse effect of monetary orthodoxy on the price of capital in Europe should provide food for thought for Europe's governments and economists.
The committee is telling us that it is not wise to have a lower inflation rate than Germany because that means that real interest rates are higher.
The committee says:
the French Franc is at serious risk … not because the French Franc is not healthy, but because French industry would not survive the suffocating high interest rates.
That is what Mr. Beregovoy found. He supported the policy of the strong franc and the orthodox monetary policies and it lost him the election. I hope that some hon. Members will think about those things.
I come to the last point—an opinion of another committee on regional policy and regional planning. It says:
It could reasonably be asked if the hardnecked insistence by the Commission and the official position of the Council to continue the policies prescribed by the convergence criteria required for the realization of EMU is the right policy.
The committee is asking that question of us.

Mr. David Winnick: Like other hon. Members, I have listened with much interest to what my hon. Friend has been saying and quoting from the economic committee of the European Parliament. Its criticisms are valid, but I find it puzzling that while it makes a valid criticism of the treaty, convergence and the rest, time and again we are told that we should be supporting the Maastricht treaty. MEPs find it difficult to understand our criticisms. Why are they so keen on a treaty when their own economic committee rightly makes legitimate and valid criticisms of the whole nonsense and poisonous set-up that would result if the treaty is ratified?

Mr. Leighton: I suppose that the committees still support the treaty, but they are debating the real convergence criteria and getting down to the detail—which is something that we have not done. The committees are saying that the ERM, with the high interest rates that it brings, is suffocating and strangling the western Europe economy, bringing rising mass unemployment and zero growth. They are learning from experience and saying that is not the way forward.
The committee adds:
It could be reasonably asked if the hardnecked insistence by the Commission and the official position of the Council to continue the policies prescribed by the convergence criteria required for the realisation of EMU is the right policy.
That question ought to be asked. I do not know whether my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench are asking it. It seems that they are not, and that they are going along with all this uncritically. The people of western Europe, however, are beginning to question the right way forward.
The committee goes on:
The great problems created by German Unification are a striking demonstration of economic realities and not just a theoretical case study of what is likely to happen if no structural measures are enacted.
It is saying that here is a laboratory experiment of monetary union. The idea seems to be that one can embrace monetary union without worrying about real convergence and examining productivity, labour and wage costs. The committee examined the situation in Germany and found that, at a stroke, the whole of east Germany's industry had been wiped out. All the east German workers are on strike. Our attention is being drawn to those matters.
The committee asks the Commission and the Council
to recognise that the ERM discipline required for EMU necessitates greater economic sacrifices from the more peripheral economies.
It is saying that Wales, Scotland and other peripheral areas will suffer—that monetary union helps the strong and efficient, but that the weak will go to the wall.

Mr. Winnick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to intervene again. If the European Parliament's economic committee is so critical, rightly, why are the majority of MEPs—unfortunately, Labour as well as Tory—almost begging the House to support a treaty that, apart from undermining the basic role of the House of Commons, would cause so much harm and injury to the British people? What possible logic is there in MEPs backing such a treaty?

Mr. Leighton: There seems to be hardly any logic in that, but I suppose that my hon. Friend's question should


be put to the MEPs. I hope that they will pay some attention to the committee's words. It asks the Commission and the Council
to recognise that unemployment and zero growth are a serious threat to the economic, social and political stability of the Community".
The ERM has brought zero growth, stagnation, and rising mass unemployment, and the committee points out that that puts at risk the Community's stability. That is the point to which present policies have brought western Europe.
The committee also asked the Commission
to draw up criteria for real convergence in the EC.
That recognises that, at present, we have monetarist criteria, not the criteria for real convergence. The only mention of that was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli.
Appalling damage is being done by the convergence criteria, and by stage 1 of economic and monetary union. We have escaped for the moment; we have been able to secure a more competitive pound and to reduce interest rates by 4 per cent., and I am told that as a result the economy is looking up. Given, however, that the criteria have brought mass unemployment, stagnation and zero growth to western Europe, I do not see how we can possibly vote for them.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I support the new clause and amendments. The Government have accepted new clause 1, subject to a certain amount of re-wording. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) commented on the triumph and the victory that we had achieved, with the Government quaking in fear of our votes. It must be said, however, that none of the reports received by Parliament or any other institution is of much use against the wording of the treaty.
That wording is quite specific, especially in regard to the deficit and convergence questions that form the stuff of the amendments. The treaty spells out economic policies and strategies that are bound to be deeply deflationary, and particularly damaging to this country—to the weaker, more peripheral economy that will suffer most from the deflationary processes. The reason is clear. Those who have launched the drive for unity in Europe have found that, as they cannot gain support from the people in referendums and cannot secure agreement from Governments—that becomes a horse-trading procedure —the only possible route is via monetary union.
The logic is simple: monetary union leads inevitably to a single Government. That process started with the exchange rate mechanism and is continuing with economic and monetary union, which is the core of this treaty. Central banks, however, will agree to that being the driving, motive force—the dynamic of union—only if it is done on their terms. Those terms, being the terms of central bankers, are deflationary; that is why deflationary proposals are written into the machinery of convergence. The criteria relating to low inflation, public-sector deficit and the ratio of debt to gross national product are the criteria that central bankers want, and the criteria that amendment No. 3 seeks to relax. The central bankers want them to be included because their approach is monetarist.

Mr. Shore: It is worth recalling that it was the central bankers' committee, under the chairmanship of Mr.

Delors, that wrote the whole draft of economic and monetary union. This is indeed a bankers' charter. The most extraordinary thing of all is that it should have been presided over by a self-proclaimed socialist French former Minister. I find that amazing.

Mr. Mitchell: I do not find the outcome amazing, given the central bankers, but I find it amazing that the process should have been presided over by a socialist, whose party has now reaped the inevitable reward of the consequences of those policies.
The terms set out in the treaty are simply not acceptable to the Labour party, or to anyone who believes in the policies advocated by the Opposition. We have made clear our reservations about the ERM, and our opposition to EMU, in a series of documents passed by the Labour party conference, starting with "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change". We also made our stance clear in a successor document, whose name I forget: such documents became a bit like Chinese meals at one time, as the policy was modified continually. It was also set out in a statement by the national executive in October 1991. This was before Group 4 took over as the custodian of Labour party policy and allowed it to wander off to Brussels—before it was clause 4 rather than Group 4 policy.
That statement made it clear that monetary union was possible only on two firm bases. Those bases are, first, a convergence in the strength, power, industrial might, productivity, investment, and dynamics of the economies and, secondly, a fairly massive machinery for redistribution. I do not refer to a minimal distribution. Amendment No. 3 contains moderate and cautious proposals. Its redistribution proposals are far more modest than those suggested by the McDougall committee in 1970, which recommended that 7·5 per cent. of Europe's gross domestic product should be redistributed if there was to be monetary and economic union. The proposed proportion—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business)

That, at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 279.

Division No. 255]
[10 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beith, Rt Hon A. J.


Aitken, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alexander, Richard
Beresford, Sir Paul



Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Booth, Hartley


Alton, David
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Andrew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes


Ashby, David
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baldry, Tony
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burns, Simon


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Burt, Alistair


Bates, Michael
Butler, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John






Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Harris, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Haselhurst, Alan


Carrington, Matthew
Hawkins, Nick


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hayes, Jerry


Churchill, Mr
Heald, Oliver


Clappison, James
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hendry, Charles


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Hicks, Robert


Colvin, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.



Congdon, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Conway, Derek
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Horam, John


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Couchman, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Day, Stephen
Hunter, Andrew


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dicks, Terry
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnston, Sir Russell


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Duncan, Alan
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Eggar, Tim
Kennedy, Charles (Ross.C&S)


Elletson, Harold
Key, Robert


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Kilfedder, Sir James


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
King, Rt Hon Tom


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evennett, David
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Faber, David
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Fabricant, Michael
Knox, David


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman



Fishburn, Dudley
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Forman, Nigel
Leigh, Edward


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Forth, Eric
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Lidington, David


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Freeman, Roger
Luff, Peter


French, Douglas
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fry, Peter
Lynne, Ms Liz


Gale, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gallie, Phil
MacKay, Andrew


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maclean, David


Garnier, Edward
Maclennan, Robert


Gillan, Cheryl
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Madel, David


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Maitland, Lady Olga


Gorst, John
Major, Rt Hon John


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Malone, Gerald


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marland, Paul


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grylls, Sir Michael
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hague, William
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Merchant, Piers


Hampson, Dr Keith
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Hanley, Jeremy
Milligan, Stephen


Hannam, Sir John
Mills, Iain





Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spink, Dr Robert


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Spring, Richard


Monro, Sir Hector
Sproat, Iain


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Moss, Malcolm
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Needham, Richard
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stephen, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stern, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Sykes, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Page, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Paice, James
Thomason, Roy


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pawsey, James
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pickles, Eric
Tracey, Richard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tredinnick, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Powell, William (Corby)
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, John
Tyler, Paul


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Richards, Rod
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Walden, George


Robathan, Andrew
Wallace, James


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sackville, Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Whittingdale, John



Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wigley, Dafydd


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Sims, Roger
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Nicholas



Speed, Sir Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spencer, Sir Derek
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Betts, Clive


Adams, Mrs Irene
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Ainger, Nick
Blair, Tony


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blunkett, David


Allen, Graham
Boateng, Paul


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Boyce, Jimmy


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Boyes, Roland


Armstrong, Hilary
Bradley, Keith


Ashton, Joe
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Austin-Walker, John
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)



Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)


Barnes, Harry
Burden, Richard


Barron, Kevin
Byers, Stephen


Battle, John
Caborn, Richard


Bayley, Hugh
Callaghan, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Bell, Stuart
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Bennett, Andrew F.
Canavan, Dennis


Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Bermingham, Gerald
Chisholm, Malcolm


Berry, Dr. Roger
Clapham, Michael






Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Coffey, Ann
Hoyle, Doug


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Connarty, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hume, John


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Corston, Ms Jean
Ingram, Adam


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cryer, Bob
Jamieson, David


Cummings, John
Janner, Greville


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jowell, Tessa


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davidson, Ian
Keen, Alan


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Khabra, Piara S.


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Denham, John
Leighton, Ron


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Dixon, Don
Lewis, Terry


Dobson, Frank
Litherland, Robert


Donohoe, Brian H.
Livingstone, Ken


Dowd, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Loyden, Eddie


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McAllion, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
McAvoy, Thomas


Eastham, Ken
McCartney, Ian


Enright, Derek
McCrea, Rev William


Etherington, Bill
Macdonald, Calum


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McFall, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McGrady, Eddie


Fatchett, Derek
McKelvey, William


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Fisher, Mark
McLeish, Henry


Flynn, Paul
McMaster, Gordon


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McNamara, Kevin


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fraser, John
Madden, Max


Fyfe, Maria
Maginnis, Ken


Galbraith, Sam
Mahon, Alice


Galloway, George
Mallon, Seamus


Gapes, Mike
Mandelson, Peter


Garrett, John
Marek, Dr John


George, Bruce
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Gerrard, Neil
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Martlew, Eric


Godsiff, Roger
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meacher, Michael


Gould, Bryan
Michael, Alun


Graham, Thomas
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Milburn, Alan


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Miller, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Grocott, Bruce
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Gunnell, John
Morgan, Rhodri


Hain, Peter
Morley, Elliot


Hall, Mike
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Hanson, David
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hardy, Peter
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mowlam, Marjorie


Harvey, Nick
Mudie, George


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Mullin, Chris


Henderson, Doug
Murphy, Paul


Hendron, Dr Joe
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Hara, Edward


Hoey, Kate
Olner, William


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Neill, Martin





Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Paisley, Rev Ian
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Parry, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Patchett, Terry
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Pendry, Tom
Snape, Peter


Pickthall, Colin
Soley, Clive


Pike, Peter L.
Spearing, Nigel


Pope, Greg
Spellar, John


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Steinberg, Gerry


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Stevenson, George


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Stott, Roger


Prescott, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Primarolo, Dawn
Straw, Jack


Purchase, Ken
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Quin, Ms Joyce
Taylor, Rt Hon John D. (Strgfd)


Randall, Stuart
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Raynsford, Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Redmond, Martin
Trimble, David


Reid, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Richardson, Jo
Vaz, Keith


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Walley, Joan


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Rogers, Allan
Wareing, Robert N


Rooker, Jeff
Watson, Mike


Rooney, Terry
Welsh, Andrew


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wicks, Malcolm


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Rowlands, Ted
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Ruddock, Joan
Wilson, Brian


Salmond, Alex
Winnick, David


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Sheerman, Barry
Worthington, Tony


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wright, Dr Tony


Short, Clare



Simpson, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Skinner, Dennis
Mr. Alan Meale and Mr. Jon Owen Jones.


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Question accordingly agreed to.

As amended, again considered.

Question again proposed, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Now that the Liberals have voted again as the party of open government, to do the dirty deed in the middle of the night, we can proceed apace into the night. I was saying before the interruption—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are holding conversations be good enough to hold them outside the Chamber? Hon. Members who are leaving will please do so now, and quickly: we have business to conduct.

Mr. Mitchell: As I was saying—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who are leaving must do so quickly and quietly.

Mr. Mitchell: I was saying earlier that the Labour party had over the years developed and refined its position on monetary union and had made it clear that monetary union could be deeply damaging.
As part of that process of developing our position on monetary union, we have made it absolutely clear that monetary union will be deeply damaging, even ruinous, for our economy unless two basic conditions are fulfilled. They are that there must be real convergence of the economy, which means convergence in terms of economic strength and power, and/or—it is not clear whether they are mutually exclusive, but it certainly needs to be


accompanied with—a massive system of redistribution to help the weaker economies that are bound to be damaged and drained by the process of monetary union.
The scale of that redistribution will have to be massive because while we have a single currency and a nation state, a nation state redistributes, in terms of public spending, about 40 per cent. of its gross domestic product. Europe redistributes perhaps 1 per cent. of the GDP of Europe, and that is totally inadequate as a machinery for offsetting the divergences that will develop through monetary union.
Even the McDougall committee in the 1970s recommended that the proportion of GDP should be increased to about 7·5 per cent., and that was before the entry of Spain, Portugal and Greece. So it considered that a much bigger process of redistribution had to occur if monetary union was not to be deeply damaging. If defence responsibilities are included, that figure would almost certainly be more than 10 per cent. If Spain, Portugal and Greece are included, more than 12·5 per cent. of Europe's GDP would need to be redistributed to offset the consequences of monetary union.
The Labour conference and the Labour party's national executive could have added a third condition. It could have said that, to offset the consequences of monetary union, one would need total mobility of labour within the EEC so that labour, as well as capital, could move to where the jobs were. We have not got, in any sense, the sort of mobility that would allow British workers to go to Europe to find jobs as the economy declines and is drained by monetary union.
Without those conditions, particularly the first two, it is inevitable that monetary union—the merger of two economies at different degrees of development and strength—will be ruinous for the weaker economy. It is not putting it too strongly to say that the weaker economy in that union would be ripped apart, just as if when one merges two drive rods the stronger one rips apart the weaker. We, as the weaker economy, would be ripped apart by the process.
When setting out the conditions for and reservations about monetary union, the Labour party conference and the national executive were being fairly cautious. I personally believe that monetary union itself will be more than damaging; it will ruin our economy, but be ultimately impossible. The currency is like the atmosphere around the planet—it sustains independent economic existence on that planet and cushions it from shocks from outside so they can be taken on the exchange rate, not jobs. If one drains the atmosphere, one drains away the element that cushions the planet from shocks and abrasions from outside, and the inflation or deflation of other planets—or economies.
The national executive says that monetary union is possible only on those two conditions. I say that monetary union, in itself, is impossible as there is no way of achieving it. Either one moves to monetary union quickly, which results in instant East Germany, with all the damaging consequences that have ensued, or one moves to monetary union slowly, which means moving back to the exchange rate mechanism. One has to have a convergence of currencies, which means a slow process of industrial anorexia for the weaker economy—ours. The quick process to monetary union is disastrous and immediately ruinous, the slow process is ruinous over the long term as it drains away the industrial economy. We know the

consequences of the exchange rate mechanism because we have been there and been through the inevitable processes in that form of convergence.
Fox hunting is described as the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable. Those who pursue the mirage of monetary union are the uncomprehending in pursuit of the unobtainable. I do not see how my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East can say, "Never mind the words, feel the spirit—feel the surge to unity." Our supporters, voters and electors—the section of society that supports the Labour party—do not have the same Euro-enthusiasm as our Front-Bench team.
By what will we ultimately be bound? We will be bound not by what my hon. Friend says is in the treaty or how he interprets it, but by the words of the treaty. In the words of the Rubaiyat, the Maastricht process writes,

"and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it."
That is the position that we would be in if we agreed to that union. I share my hon. Friend's hopes and enthusiasm, but it is very unlikely that they will materialise.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: Did my hon. Friend see the excellent article in yesterday's edition of The Guardian? It drew parallels with the present treaty, which seems to try to replicate the period closest to ours—when we were all tied to the gold standard in the run-up to the first world war. That led to 5 per cent. of the British population emigrating because of its deflationary consequences. We are not just talking about tears; after the best part of two years of being locked into the exchange rate mechanism, the majority of people in Britain would like to emigrate if they could.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is perfectly right: that would be the consequence.
The general argument is clear. In the words of Aneurin Bevan, "Why look in a crystal ball when you can read the book?" The text is there and it is quite specific. That is why amendment No. 3 tries to set out more realistic terms of convergence.
The treaty is absolutely specific. The procedure for reporting on the British economy starts before we reach stage 2. According to the treaty, the reporting begins even before we reach stage 2. It starts by assessing
the progress made with regard to economic and monetary convergence, particularly with regard to price stability and sound public finances, and the progress made with the implementation of Community law concerning the internal market.
It starts before stage 2 and it gets harder and tougher all the time. We end up with all the power of a rate-capped council to control its expenditure.
Article 104 is quite specific, and that is why we are attempting to soften it by our amendment. It states:
the Council may decide to give notice to the Member State to take, within a specified time limit, measures for the deficit reduction which is judged necessary … in order to remedy the situation … The Council may decide … to require the Member State concerned to publish additional information … to invite the European Investment Bank to reconsider its lending policy … to require the Member State to make non-interest-bearing deposits of an appropriate size with the Community".
It sets out the whole process of reporting, fining and censure.
We should think what the very mention of a report, the very possibility of such criticism and censure will have on


confidence, particularly when the Government are trying to borrow £55 billion to cover their deficit, if we are faced with the rumours of censure from Brussels. What effect will it have on markets and currency speculation? We are exposing ourselves to that possibility by accepting the obligations in the treaty.
We are facing economic difficulties—and that is the importance of amendment No. 32, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). The Government are behaving schizophrenically. On one hand, they are pursuing a policy of competitive devaluation to break out of the ERM corset and the constraints that it imposed on us. That policy has been successful. The only success that the Government had was when they were forced to take up the policy of competitive devaluation. However, at the same time they are putting back the straitjacket of controls of the exchange rate mechanism. That is totally schizophrenic.
What is industry to make of the prospects for investment? Is it to seize the opportunity of competitive devaluation and expect a continuously competitive currency and on that basis it will be successful in exporting to world markets? How can it if at the same time the Government are putting back the straitjacket of all that is implied in stage 2 and the uncertainties of whether we move to stage 3? We know that that will bring us back into alignment. What is industry to make of that? Will the Government go back into the exchange rate mechanism, with all the disasters that ensued, or will we be able to remain competitive?
A Financial Times editorial last week stressed the need for an economy in a state of deficit to keep the currency continuously competitive. The Government are totally ambiguous in their proposals.
The Minister has said in writing to me and other hon. Members and again from the Front Bench today that there is no obligation in the treaty or in stage 2 to return to the exchange rate mechanism. That is true. But we must look beyond the formal provisions. The whole emphasis of the treaty and all the processes of stage 2 are about convergence. We will take part in all those processes until we give notice that we are not moving to monetary union.
I ask hon. Members to think of all the pressures that will be on us once we have signed the treaty and once we have signed up for that kind of process. It is not only the external pressures. I ask hon. Members to think of all the internal pressures, of that fifth column of Euroenthusiasts, of people in the City, who will be telling us that we must get into monetary union, we must stick by our commitment and we must go ahead, otherwise the bank will not come here, investment will not come here, all those Japanese firms that are going to invest here will not come after all, and we cannot be left behind. That will be the argument and we shall be back in the debate on which we spent so long before we eventually joined, with such disastrous consequences, the exchange rate mechanism. The argument will again be clamorous, and it will be much more high-octane and high-powered. So we will have internal division and external pressure.

Mr. Winnick: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ministers are apparently trying to sell the treaty to their own supporters on the basis that it will not come to pass, that it is all exaggerated, that it will not really mean anything

and that, once Parliament approves it, that will be the end of it? Is not my hon. Friend right in emphasising that those who are responsible for the treaty will make sure that economic convergence will come and that it will be implemented precisely as stated in article 104c and elsewhere?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is quite right. The Government will have to move down that path, certainly down the path of stage 2, and they will have to signify at an early point on stage 3. That is not only because of what is in the treaty. As my hon. Friend said, they have opted for a policy of bamboozlement. The Prime Minister's preferred policy position is to keep all his balls in the air at any one time, and that is what they are trying to achieve in this process of bamboozlement about the treaty.
The opt-out from monetary union is the Government's figleaf. What is the point of the opt-out when the whole of the treaty is about monetary and economic union? What good does the opt-out from the central core of the treaty do? I have no doubt that, while the opt-out is there to keep the Conservative party as united as it can be—and it will not be very united in any circumstances—once the treaty is signed, the position will change, as the Prime Minister indicated just a couple of weeks ago in the first flush of success at getting the Bill through Committee, to a degree of Euro-enthusiasm, and Britain will go down that road.
It is bound to go down it by the treaty. Let us take the second paragraph of article 3a:
Concurrently with the foregoing, and as provided in this Treaty and in accordance with the timetable and the procedures set out therein, these activities shall include the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates leading to the … single currency".
Those words are specific, and European law is bound by the preambles; the lawyers interpret it in the light of the preambles. We shall be vulnerable to pressure.
A Government subject to that preamble, with all the qualifications in the treaty and all the impositions of the treaty, will be unable to get away as blithely as they have done with a competitive devaluation which must be sustained to keep British industry growing and to expand our industrial base so that it becomes viable again. That demands a prolonged period of sustained competitiveness which we cannot have if we are to be subjected to continuous nagging pressure from Europe to get back into the exchange rate mechanism and to go along with the other member states.
It is even worse than that. The barrister, Martin Howe, has argued lucidly and logically in a pamphlet that not only would we be vulnerable to pressure—which would be real enough because we should be out of line with everybody else and they would want us to get back and be as miserable as them, abandon our competitive advantage and abandon the benefits that we have received from it —but we should be liable to legal action at the European Court to take us back into the exchange rate mechanism unless we went there. I have not heard that argument rebutted or even challenged from the Government Front Bench. If we are to have this treaty, they have an obligation to tell us what they think of that argument.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Give way and let the Minister answer.

Mr. Mitchell: I am happy to give way to the Minister.

Mr. Dorrell: I have said more than once in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman that the position in the treaty is made quite clear, both in the text of the statute on the European Monetary Institute, as regards stage 2, and as regards our own position under our protocol in stage 3, that unless and until a member state becomes a fully fledged member of stage 3 of economic and monetary union monetary policy remains the responsibility of the institutions of the member states. That cannot be reconciled with any implied or express obligation to join the ERM.
The position is clear: for Britain, during stage 2 and until we join stage 3, our capacity to determine our own monetary policy is safeguarded in absolute terms by the treaty.

Mr. Mitchell: That is certainly the Government's position, but it ignores the distinction between monetary policy of the ERM as well as in the treaty to move on to the ERM; it ignores the continual political pressure that will be brought to bear on us to be good Europeans; and it ignores the preamble. The Government do not seem to understand the workings of the European Court. Faced with a British Government who try to maintain a competitive edge for a long time, what will our competitors do? They will haul us before the European Court, and there we will be vulnerable. That court will be bound by the treaty, and by the preamble in particular.
The penchant, the inclination, of the European Court is to further union. It is not an impartial body—

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is neither a penchant nor an inclination. The court will be bound by the need to interpret the treaties in relation to the original treaties and subsequent treaties. They are not something that the court thought up: they are the only reason why the court exists.

Mr. Mitchell: I only wish that I had my hon. Friend's directness of mind and approach. I was skirting round the issue, using French words like "penchant". The court is an instrument of unity; it will be forced to act as I have described, and the conditions for doing so are explicitly set out in the treaty.

Mr. Dorrell: The court is not an instrument of unity; it is an instrument for interpreting the treaty. And the treaty that it would be asked to interpret says, at article 3 of the EMI statute, that the powers of the EMI are
without prejudice to the responsibility of the competent authorities for the conduct of monetary policy within the respective Member States".
So much is clear. Furthermore, the United Kingdom's protocol states that if the protocol is activated the United Kingdom
shall retain its powers in the field of monetary policy according to national law".
That is what the European Court would be asked to interpret. It is plain and beyond dispute.

Mr. Mitchell: That brings us to the arguments about our being bound by the imperatives of stage 2, as set out in the treaty, even before the protocol is activated. I have already mentioned the irrevocable fixing of exchange rates, which is what the treaty is all about. That is the sort of issue that the court would take into account when interpreting the treaty.
The Government are attaching themselves to a figleaf in the hope that they can get away with all this. Politically they cannot, because the pressure will be on them to show themselves good Europeans—and there will be legal pressures to abandon the competitive advantage that we have gained by leaving the miseries of the exchange rate mechanism.
I fear that reports to Parliament are a fragile weapon compared with the power and might of the treaty, but the amendments are at least at attempt to safeguard ourselves from the deflationary pressures that lie in store for us if we accept a treaty that has deflation at its core. It is the cancer at the heart of the treaty. It is explicitly written into the text, and it would be disastrous for the people whom I represent.
I am not in politics to give powers to unaccountable central bankers or to aim at zero inflation. That has never been the objective of the Labour party, of socialists, or of anyone who wants a better society and full employment. These aims will be damaged by the deflationary techniques deployed in the treaty. It would be disastrous not only for Labour, for our people and for the parts of the country that we represent, but for Europe. The people of Europe will not be made enthusiastic about Europe by being put out of work.

Mr. Rupert Allason: I am grateful for the fact that I was able to catch your eye, Madam Speaker. I failed to do so during the latter proceedings in Committee.
I support new clause 12 which I regard as the key to the issue. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said that Conservative Back Benchers were told by the Government that Maastricht was a meaningless affair because it would never happen. But Maastricht is already under way in the sense that the British public are paying for it. The hands of the European Community are in our pockets. By that, I mean that there are only two major net contributors to the Community as it exists—Germany by a large margin and ourselves; the French seem to break even, more or less. It is important that the House makes the decisions and scrutinises all future steps to economic integration.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has spoken eloquently about the central bankers who will be running economic integration. That is not just the first step towards federalism; it is a considerable step down the road. Yet when we examine what Maastricht means and how new clause 12 would put a brake on the less palatable aspects of Maastricht, we cannot deny that we will be passing over sovereignty in a range of areas and passing over powers from the House to faceless bureaucrats and central bankers in Europe. Above all, we will be paying for it because we will be putting money into the European cohesion fund. Our voters will be required to pay; yet they will never have an opportunity to kick out the institutions at the heart of the treaty.
In my understanding, convergence means that at some stage in future there will be economic union in which we will all be subject to the same currency. The idea that the economies of the emerging eastern bloc countries that intend to join the European union will remotely converge with our economy is fantasy. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that Albania will apply in the not-too-distant future to join the European union. It is fantasy that the Albanian economy should be even remotely connected with our economy. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and some other countries are looking enviously at the European union. Who can blame them? In my judgment, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is right in seeking to deepen the European union and not to make it a rich men's club, which, in essence, it is in danger of becoming.
I regard the European union as the free trade club for which I campaigned in the early 1970s. If new clause 12 were accepted, it would at least give the House control over our own destiny and our own affairs. I am wildly enthusiastic about a free trade club, but I draw the line at a federal structure. If we are to talk about an integrated economy and cohesion in future, we must learn to get along together under the existing regime.
In a straightforward way, there are three criteria by which to judge whether the European Community is working. First, I should like to know whether my Devon fishermen may fish in French waters. The answer is simply that they may not. Secondly, a useful way to judge European union is to see whether a British business man operating in Europe can fly with British Airways between, say, Madrid and Rome. He cannot, and that is not a level playing field. British Airways will not be able to pick up passengers from second countries and fly them to third countries until 1997 at the earliest. That is another criterion on which European union fails. The third matter

is straightforward. Many business men, especially in Devon, rely on cellular telephones. It is extraordinary that cellular telephones used in England cannot be used on the continent. European-wide allocation of frequencies would make life much easier.
Those three criteria show that there is not a single market. I am an enthusiastic European and I should like to see a single market, a free trade club, but that is not on offer in the Maastricht treaty. New clause 12 will at least enable the House to curb the power of Ministers and those who will take decisions without consulting the electorate.
It is surely fantasy to believe that there can ever be a completely agreed, integrated foreign or security policy. A few years ago, there was a most blatant and obvious example of aggression in the Gulf in which the aggressor and the innocent party were perfectly obvious. Could Europe agree on a foreign policy? No, it could not. If we cannot get agreement in those circumstances, what are the chances in future?

Mr. Winnick: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that those who are most enthusiastic about the treaty and who may be in a minority—I mean not those who support the Government in the Lobby but enthusiasts such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)—believe that the treaty lays the basis for a federal Europe? When challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) to say whether a single currency would mean a single Government, the right hon. Gentleman said yes and was quite happy about it. Although, for obvious reasons, the word "federal" is not included in the treaty and the Government minimise the issue, the treaty is the basis for a federal Europe. Apart from anything else, it would certainly diminish and undermine the whole purpose of the House of Commons.

Mr. Allason: I do not often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but on this occasion I endorse what he says. A few days ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) was asked about the consequences of political and economic union when he took this country into the European Community. I was surprised to hear him brush that aside and clearly say, "That was always the intention."
I fear that there is a hidden agenda. I campaigned for this country to join the European Community, and I do not regret that because it is unquestionably in our long-term interests to be able to operate within a European trading bloc. I am enthusiastic about a free trade club, but I do not subscribe to the hidden agenda of European economic and political integration.
People become vague and their words become fuzzy when they are pressed to define exactly what is meant by political integration. I want decisions made in this Parliament, which must remain sovereign. If we allow our economic future to be determined by faceless bankers in Frankfurt, we shall store up a great deal of trouble for ourselves.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Is not what will happen exactly what happened when the fishermen felt that they had been badly treated and that no one was listening to their complaints?


There will be direct action rather than parliamentary action. Is that not a much greater worry than the idea that, somehow or another, we will be left behind?

Mr. Allason: I do not want to be drawn down that avenue because I have strong views on the rights of our fishermen to be able to operate, if not on a level playing field, at least on a level ocean with European fishermen. That illustrates the point that there is not equal enforcement. My fishermen in Devon would be pleased to comply with tying-up regulations and the controlling of catches if they believed for one moment that such regulations would be equally enforced across the rest of Europe. The difficulty for my fishermen is that they can use a pair of binoculars and see on the horizon French fishermen busy catching what they regard as their fish. That is an unacceptable view of Europe.
There are only two arguments for Maastricht. One is that there will be greater European enforcement of regulations. The second is that if we keep quiet and agree to Maastricht, the EFTA countries will be stupid enough to join in and they will then foot the bill because they will be net contributors, along with us and the Germans.
New clause 12 gives the House the opportunity to scrutinise all future decision making in relation to economic and monetary policy. If the House is to continue to command the respect of the electorate, and if the electorate is to continue to believe that it has the final say over who comes to the House and who decides taxation policy, it is essential that new clause 12 and all the amendments that limit and control the impact of the Bill are passed into law.

Mr. Hain: I found the comments of the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) interesting because they were rather schizophrenic. He praised the free market in Europe as, almost without exception, Tory Members do, but he did not accept that the logical consequence of that is a free market in money as well. If one wants free trade and a free market for business, one needs, as a conclusion of that process, a free market in capital and money, and one ends up with monetary union, which is the agenda of the right.
I find it puzzling that many socialists have gone along with that. For me, the problem with the Maastricht treaty is not the movement towards political unification or social cohesion, but the fact that it imposes a monetarist agenda on Europe. The key is not the social chapter or measures such as additional reporting mechanisms for Parliament to scrutinise the economic developments in Europe, welcome though they are. The key is the way in which Maastricht's monetarist agenda imposes deflation on members' economies at a time when they desperately need the opposite.
The policies being developed through Maastricht are like relying on leeches to cure a fever. They impose rigid economic constraints, the most notable being restricting the public sector deficit to 3 per cent. of GDP and insisting that total public debt must not exceed 60 per cent. of GDP.
The constraints and convergence criteria are not permissive and flexible, contrary to what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) said. They are extremely rigid. Article 104c, on page 19, makes it clear that member states shall avoid breaches of those monetary and fiscal constraints. In addition, paragraph 11 of article 104c on page 20, says that punishments will be imposed. A

kind of European state capping will be imposed if member states do not conform to achieving the objectives. Those are all well described in the Maastricht treaty.

Sir Peter Hordern: Will not that pose a considerable problem for Belgium and Italy, because, as I understand it, last year the Belgians' debt was 120 per cent. of GDP and the Italians' 105 per cent? Does the hon. Gentleman think that those two countries will slash their public expenditure in half or double their taxation in the next three years during which time they must decide whether to enter phase 3? Surely that casts doubt on the capacity of the EC to come together as suggested in the Maastricht treaty. Therefore, does not that emphasise even more the wise decision of my right hon. Friends in going for the opt out from this monetary union?

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. He could point to other countries. Virtually no country in the EC at present satisfies, or is anywhere near satisfying. all the convergence criteria. However, the hon. Gentleman does not mention that virtually all of them are trying to do so and are seeking to go down that road. But consider the consequences. Europe now has massive unemployment which is threatening social stability and cohesion and causing a rise in racism. In the end, if the process is proceeded with, as Maastricht will ensure that it is, it will bring down Europe and the prospects of European unification.
If the convergence criteria are flexible, why are they framed in such clear, legally defined, specific terms in the treaty? It is illogical to argue that they could be flexible. Why should France, at huge cost to its economy, Ireland, at huge cost to its economy with extensive public expenditure cuts, Spain and Germany, with its problems resulting from the pursuit of a monetarist economic agenda, seek to conform to the terms of the treaty?
Will those countries let us off the hook? Will they let Britain stand back and interpret the convergence criteria flexibly? Of course not. They are suffering huge costs as a result of seeking to meet them and they will not allow us to escape from the stranglehold that Maastricht imposes. They will insist that we follow them down that same road. Otherwise, we cannot be part of the European monetary express train. It is in their interests to insist that we follow them; otherwise their populations will ask why they should suffer the consequences of the monetarist dogma when Britain stands free and interprets the criteria flexibly.
We know that the central driving force behind Maastricht is the competitive single market, where price, currency and interest rate stability predominate, together with tight restrictions on borrowing and debt, virtually regardless of the consequences for employment, growth and redistribution. Price stability is defined in article 3a as the overriding objective of the treaty's economic framework. It must be pursued "without prejudice" to any other objective, such as those that are stated in article 2.
It is not good enough to quote article 2 as the bible of the treaty when its provisions are overridden and swept aside by the much tighter, more specific constraints in article 3a. The policeman of this monetary regime, the independent European central bank, has its independence uncompromisingly spelt out in article 107. I shall not describe all the details of the banking regime because that would take me beyond the terms of the amendments.


However, when one considers the monetary constraints and the convergence criteria, the bank's role becomes crucial.
Article 107 says:
When exercising the powers and carrying out the tasks and duties conferred on them by this Treaty and the Statute of the ECB, neither the ECB, nor a national central bank, nor any members of their decision-making bodies shall seek or take instructions from Community institutions or bodies, from any government of a Member State or from any other body. The Community institutions and bodies and governments of the Member States undertake to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the members of the decision-making bodies of the ECB or of the national central banks in the performance of their tasks.
Not much fudging or flexibility there.
11 pm
We see a microcosm of the central bank's operation in the way that the Bundesbank currently operates. It is driving the German economy into deep recession at huge cost to industry and at massive cost to social relations—with the rise of Nazism and all the other problems that we see in Germany now.
When an independent central bank pursues price stability in a dogmatic and fanatical fashion, the consequences are the rising unemployment and deflation we see throughout Europe, yet the treaty invites us to adopt exactly that agenda and framework.
A recent worldwide academic study showed that there is no relationship between the dogmatic pursuit of price stability and zero or low inflation and economic growth and success. Economic success is due to other, structural factors. Price stability is desirable, but it should not be fanatically pursued in the way that the treaty suggests and the Government worship at every opportunity.
While the treaty sets out strict criteria for monetary stability, it sets no comparable targets for growth, full employment or resource distribution. Its monetary targets are so strict that they are imposing deflation on member state economies, with devastating effects on the weak—at the very time that they need an expanison in demand and a strategy for full employment.
The savage public spending cuts being made across Europe are driving up unemployment beyond its present level of 18 million, or 10 per cent., towards the OECD forecast—if it is to be believed, and there is nothing to rival it—of 30 million jobless or 16 per cent. unemployment by the end of the decade.
Given the social strains that unemployment at its present level has already created—most frighteningly, in Germany—imagine what might happen if, under a monetarist regime, unemployment reached the level that the OECD suggests.
The monetarist regime is caught in a time warp. It was designed in an era when monetarism was fashionable and lauded in Britain under Thatcherism, but it has run out of steam. It was never valid and the treaty's objectives and framework are completely out of date. No one in Europe seriously suggests that the convergence criteria are not deflationary. Anyone who has studied the matter universally—including members of my own Front Bench —accepts that they are. The argument is whether they can be interpreted with sufficient flexibility, but I suggest that that is not possible under the terms of the treaty.
If one examines the way in which Europe is evolving under the treaty, one finds that bankers and money markets are ruling the roost rather than Governments and the people. According to Warburg, the merchant bankers, the drive by member states to convince the foreign exchange markets of their financial rectitude is forcing public spending cuts of 1·25 per cent. of GDP in 1993 alone—regardless of other convergence constraints and their impact on unemployment and public spending. That is being done simply to satisfy the foreign exchange markets. The exchange rate stability that the ERM and a more rigid Maastricht treaty would require is, according to merchant bankers, bringing massive deflation.
The Maastricht treaty attempts to establish an industrial policy in article 130, but all that—like the social chapter—pales into insignificance when compared with the monetarist regime that I have sought to describe. Those consequences are not felt only in rising unemployment and deflation; poverty in the European Community has increased. In 1975, 38 million people were affected; in 1992, the figure was 53 million, and the position will continue to worsen.
I believe that the treaty puts economics before politics, finance before democracy and the interests of bankers before those of citizens, and that that will result in Europe's imploding. I think that those who are genuinely pro-Europe will not support the treaty and, in particular, will oppose its monetarist economic framework. We believe in a Europe of full employment, a Europe of social justice; a Europe in which economies are encouraged to expand rather than contracting and deflating. Maastricht is blocking that opportunity at every level.
I believe that if the process continues—as it will if the Bill is passed and Europe adopts the proposed course—these "impossibilist" economic constraints will result in Europe's self-destruction. The vision of a united Europe, a democratic Europe—a socialist Europe, from my point of view—will be impossible to achieve: the high unemployment and public spending cuts that are being generated will cause such widespread political and social instability that the whole project will fall apart.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) dwelt on article 2 of the original treaty, as revised by the Maastricht treaty. The revised article sets out the objectives of the Community, which the House has discussed repeatedly during our debates on the Bill; it defines them, for instance, as
sustainable and non-inflationary growth, a high degree of employment and of social protection, the raising of the standard of living and quality of life, and economic and social cohesion and solidarity among Member States.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of those objectives with some enthusiasm. I agree with everything that he said about their importance; that is why they are written into the treaty. As he rightly said, one of the purposes of the Community—one of the purposes of the process that started with the original treaty—was to facilitate their delivery.
The hon. Gentleman went on to argue that new clause 1 would enhance the Government's accountability, particularly in the context of the achievement of the objectives defined in article 2 of the treaty of Rome. With some qualifications—I shall come to those in a moment —I am happy to accept the proposition that new clause 1 enhances accountability. I indicated earlier that the Government would not oppose the new clause.
It was at that point—some hours ago—that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) allowed himself the observation that, as hon. Members from all parties appeared to agree on the subjects that they were debating, this might be an opportunity for us to stop talking and move on to some of the other issues that might need to be explored. It was when the hon. Gentleman sat down that the disagreements started to surface: that was the point at which the hon. Member for Oxford, East began to talk about what he saw as the danger of a deflationary basis built into the Maastricht agreement.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East believed that the wider objectives set out in article 2 were in some sense jeopardised by the commitment set out in the treaty to deliver price stability and the monetary objectives that reinforce that central purpose. He described the old shibboleth that there is a choice to be made by policy makers—a long-term trade-off—between growth and inflation. That theme was picked up by several speakers, but the House will not be surprised to learn that the Government do not accept the hon. Gentleman's premise. It was developed—rather improbably—by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He wanted to distance himself from a definition of economic policy which saw the control of inflation—I think I quote his words accurately—as
the basic sole end of economic policy.
Of course nobody believes that the control of inflation is the basic sole end of economic policy. The purpose of delivering price stability is precisely in order to facilitate the delivery of the objectives set out in article 2 of the treaty.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East did not feel that he could endorse what he described as the German policy of low inflation. It is common knowledge that the Germans have encountered short-term difficulties with their counter-inflationary discipline, but if we want to see the effect on the real economy and competitiveness of a superior performance in terms of monetary discipline, we need look no further than German manufacturing strength and the fact that the German economy has outperformed over a long period the rest of western Europe.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East described as an obsession with inflation is not confined to Germany. Recognition of the importance of a counterinflationary discipline as the sine qua non of the delivery of successful economic policy is increasing throughout Europe, particularly in northern Europe. I do not regard it as an obsession with inflation. I regard it as a clear commitment to deliver the building block, the foundation upon which a successful economic policy is built.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East talked about the importance of expanding employment and of wider social objectives. Of course, I agree that expanding employment and raising living standards is the purpose of economic policy, but that remains so much hot air if we do not provide the foundation upon which experience demonstrates that a successful economic policy is built —namely, a sound monetary system.
The Government want successful monetary discipline and flexible labour markets that allow growth, generated on the basis of monetary discipline, to be converted into jobs. That is the mixture we commend in the Bill: a commitment to sound monetary discipline, which is the commitment that the Government give, and the avoidance

of new obligations that would impair the workings of the labour market and thereby impair job creation. I look forward to the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East in resisting the proposals in the social chapter, added to the treaty, which would have the effect of impeding the expansion of employment which my hon. Friend espouses and which would also have the effect of destroying jobs in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Winnick: Leaving aside the social chapter, which we are not debating, does the Minister realise that with 17 million unemployed at present in the member states of the Community, what is required is economic expansion? Why does he believe that the much-quoted article 104c, under which member states are told that their budget deficit must not exceed the permitted limit of 3 per cent., which is spelt out in another article, will help to reduce unemployment? Will not he thereby ensure that, instead of 17 million people being unemployed, far more than 17 million will be unemployed?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman misreports article 104c. It does not say that under no circumstances may a member state's budget deficit rise above 3 per cent. of GDP. It says that at stage 3, to which this country is not committed to proceeding, member states will commit themselves to avoiding excessive Government deficits—or budget deficits, in our parlance. The purpose of avoiding excessive budget deficits and maintaining monetary discipline is for exactly the reasons that I described earlier —to facilitate wealth creation and, along with wealth creation, job creation.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) spoke to amendment No. 3.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In case there is any misunderstanding, what did my hon. Friend mean when he mentioned the social chapter? As far as I am aware, we are discussing only amendment No. 2, which the Foreign Secretary said will not apply the social chapter to Britain. Has there been some misunderstanding?

Mr. Dorrell: In discussing not amendment No. 2 but new clause 1, I was simply responding to my hon. Friend's point about wanting an economic policy that leads to the expansion of employment. That is also what the Government want, which is why we are commending the combination of monetary discipline and the absence of social chapter regulations as the way to maximise growth and job creation in Britain.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli spoke to amendment No. 3, which he and some of his right hon. and hon. Friends tabled. At least some parts of amendment No. 3 define a kind of Euro-elysium, which the right hon. Gentleman espoused and which he wanted to see achieved. I should also like to see a world in which inflation over three years averaged less than 1·5 per cent. and in which growth proceeded briskly. That is a shared objective., but I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman's scepticism, which he again expressed this evening, about whether it is possible to achieve non-inflationary growth. During our previous debate on this subject, he asked me whether I could cite an example of non-inflationary growth. While he was speaking, I was looking up two examples which I think will be of interest to him and, possibly, also to the House.
In 1986–88, which is not ancient history, the average rate of inflation in Germany and Japan was less than 0·5 per cent. Statistically, that may not be zero, but it is certainly well within what amendment No. 3 recognises as being near price stability. During that three-year period when inflation averaged less than 0·5 per cent. in both countries, growth in Japan averaged 4·4 per cent. a year and in Germany 2·5 per cent. a year. Unemployment in Japan during that period averaged 2·7 per cent. and in Germany 6·2 per cent. That is a pretty attractive model for the type of economic development that I should like to see pursued in this country and, indeed, elsewhere in the Community.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is significant that he has been able to cite only one country—

Mr. Dorrell: Two countries.

Mr. Davies: —one country in western Europe, and then only for a period of two years?

Mr. Dorrell: I picked out two, but I suspect that I could cite not dissimilar figures in the European Community, for example, in Holland. I did not want to detain the House by giving a long list. I should have thought that the example of the recent economic performances of Germany and Japan would be sufficiently persuasive to puncture the right hon. Gentleman's proposition that non-inflationary growth cannot be delivered in a modern free economy.
I always enjoy listening to the speeches of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) because they reassure me that the message of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) will be carried on by another means when he has passed to another place. The hon. Member for Neath asked why, in a treaty devoted primarily to economic and especially monetary union, there were no such explicit targets for wider social objectives as there are for monetary objectives. The reason is straightforward.
The economic heart of the treaty deals with questions of monetary policy. Unemployment rates, growth rates and wider economic policy issues remain matters of national concern. During the Bill's Committee stage we discussed the fact that the purpose of the provisions for economic and monetary union is to provide an institutional framework for the operation of monetary policy on a Community basis separate from the continuing national responsibility in the rest of the economic policy sphere.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Rubbish.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady may say that that is rubbish, but I cannot see how, on any linguistic basis, the treaty could be said to be devoted to any other purpose.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Does not it occur to the Minister that those who control the economy have a direct effect on rates of unemployment and of inflation? Has that unique idea occurred only to the Opposition?

Mr. Dorrell: The point that I was making, with which the hon. Lady did not seem to agree, was that within the treaty a distinction is drawn between the operation of monetary policy and that of other aspects of economic policy.

Mrs. Dunwoody: That is impossible.

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Lady says that it is impossible, but there are numerous examples from around the world of political systems that draw precisely that distinction.

Mr. Shore: Surely the Minister is aware that article 103 says that economic policy shall be
a matter of common concern",
and that there will be "multilateral surveillance" of how economic trends develop in all the countries. How can he possibly say that economic policy is not subject to Community rules under the treaty?

Mr. Dorrell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because he has provided me with a basis upon which to proceed to the consideration of article 103, which is the main purpose of the new clause. The multilateral surveillance under that article is intended simply to provide a treaty framework for the discussions of economic policy that have taken place since at least 1974, in order to co-ordinate the full scope of economic policy within the Community. None the less, economic policy clearly remains the responsibility of national Governments within a widely drafted treaty commitment to co-ordination.
The point that I sought to make earlier was about a concept fundamentally different from the evolution of institutions responsible for day-to-day management on a Community basis of monetary policy, which is the purpose of the central banking arrangements set out in the treaty.

Mr. Shore: How, then, does the Minister explain the reference in article 103 to qualified majority voting?

Mr. Dorrell: The purpose of multilateral surveillance is clearly to allow the wider convergence of economic policy. That is not part of the clear path towards stage 3 and the operation of a single monetary policy provided for within the context of the bank.
Having sought to respond to the wider issues raised in the debate, I shall detain the House briefly by dealing with the terms of the new clause, which, as I have already said, the Government will not oppose. We have accepted that the House has an interest in the issues on which the new clause says that the Government should report. That interest is not in dispute. Article 103 makes it clear that we are talking about information on important measures which almost by definition is already reported to Parliament. Perhaps more important is the fact that it is reported to Parliament at the time that such decisions are made, so that Parliament can exercise its proper role of accountability and of scrutiny of the Government of the day. The new clause adds a further commitment to set reports submitted to the Commission by the Government in the context of the Government's assessment of progress towards the delivery of the objectives set out in article 2. If hon. Members wish to press that upon us, we shall not oppose them.

Mr. Alan Simpson: I have spoken before about the loss of economic sovereignty and political accountability that is written into the treaty. Tonight, I concentrate on the theme with which the Minister finished his comments—the terms of convergence. I especially wish to support amendment No. 3.
Just before the bank holiday, a delegation of visitors came here from Germany. As I listened to what the


Minister has just said, I realised that it was similar to what those visitors said to us. They said, "We know that, throughout Germany, the public believe that the treaty is unworkable and unwanted. But we have some good news for you. It is that we will not blow the gaff, break ranks or tell the public that we know it is unworkable and unwanted. In return, we expect you to do the same." The Minister said much the same. In effect, he said, "We know that the treaty is unworkable and unwanted outside, but we will not blow the gaff."
I had the temerity to ask why we should not all blow the gaff. The response was, "For goodness' sake, no. You cannot do that. If you did, we would all look fools." The sad news is that outside the House we have been rumbled. In Germany, France, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, the public know that the treaty is unwanted and unworkable. They know that the terms of convergence offer them nothing in addressing the key issues that affect their daily lives. They know that the terms will not produce jobs, build houses and schools, invest in our infrastructure, halt crime or do anything to stop the fearful rise in nationalism, racism and fascism.
That is why my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and I have attempted to draft an amendment that would address, in a positive way, the real concerns of people in this country and throughout Europe. Amendment No. 3 is not a narrow nationalistic proposal. It is a commitment to a different vision of a people's Europe, a form of internationalism that is beggared by the treaty as a whole.
If I am asked why the treaty will be a catastrophe, I would refer the House to the table on page 14 of research paper 93/25 which sets out by how much all countries of the European Community currently fail to meet the terms of convergence. It reveals one case after another of failure, worse than the worst of the school reports I ever received, and I confess that some of them left something to be desired. The table shows that only France and Luxembourg would be in a position to proceed on the basis of convergence that the treaty requires. Even they are beginning to turn a fearful eye on the levels of unemployment and the social upheaval in their countries.
We are being asked to subscribe to what is little more than a feast of fools. Monetary convergence would not work without mass unemployment, permanent social division and reliance on a dreadful degree of racism and xenophobia. Some of the worst effects of that can be seen in Germany, France and Italy. They are also present in my county of Nottinghamshire, where last week the Nottingham Evening Post ran an extensive series of articles detailing its concern about the new activities of neo-fascist groups in the county. Their appeal is based on the fear of unemployment and poverty and on the alienation of young people.
Amendment No. 3 sets out in a modest way to offer beacons of hope around which reinvestment in people can be structured. It talks of a required rate of growth of 3 per cent., not a large figure. To achieve it, we would have to echo Japan's initiative, by which it has increased government borrowing by £75 billion to increase its rate of growth from 1·25 to 3·3 per cent., or we would have to follow the German example of borrowing for reinvestment, by transferring £ 30 billion a year for the next decade, in pursuit not of zero inflation but of social

stability. That is missing from the Maastricht treaty and its criteria for convergence. We would inherit a fearful legacy if we signed up to it.
We require a policy of investment in people that will not discriminate on the basis of age, and will not set men against women, young against old, French or Greeks against British. It requires a common investment policy that will not rob Peter in Paris to pay Paul in Peterborough. We are offering a set of proposals which would be modest, but which would commit us to removing regional disparities, to challenging poverty in the European Community and requiring the United Kingdom to have a regional policy which means something because it sets targets for reducing unemployment and regional inequalities in wealth.
11.30 pm
Were we to be given the right to vote on amendment No. 3, it would give the House the chance to rise as one behind a set of policies that would invest in the people of this country and the people of Europe. It would not be a bankers' charter or a bureaucrats' charter. It would start from the fears and concerns that assail every one of our constituents, if only we had the courage to listen to them. If we voted on the amendment, it would give the Labour Front-Bench team the chance to rise up and lay claim to it as the core of a socialist policy to which I know we could all subscribe.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendments made to the proposed clause: in line 1, leave out from 'of to 'Her' in line 3 and insert
'the Treaty establishing the European Community'.

In line 6, leave out 'Title II'.

In line 7, leave out 'Article' and insert 'Articles'.

In line 8, leave out 'out of the Treaty'.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Clause, as amended, added to the Bill.

New clause 2

ASSENT BY NATIONAL CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT

'. Where within the Treaty on European Union referred to in section 1 above there is a requirement for changes in voting procedure in its Council of Ministers, or other changes therein specified that decision be made after assent by the member states and in acccordance with their respective constitutional requirements, in the United Kingdom that assent shall be by Act of Parliament.'.—[Mr. Shore.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Shore: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient also to discuss the following: New clause 4—Procedure for determining the common foreign and security policy—
'. When it is proposed that the Council of Ministers responsible for determining a common Foreign and Security Policy are to define matters for joint action in accordance with Article J.3.2 of the Treaty named in section 1 above, no Minister of the Crown shall assent to such a proposal before those matters proposed to be specified are given approval in a Resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament. '.
New clause 19—Adoption of conventions in the fields of justice and home affairs—
'No convention drawn up by the Council of the European Communities under Article K.3.2.(c) of the Treaty on European Union shall be adopted by the United Kingdom unless the decision to adopt the convention has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons. '.


New clause 38—Adoption of conventions in the field of justice and of home affairs—
'No convention drawn up by the Council of the European Communities under Articles K.3.2.(c) of the Treaty of European Union shall be adopted by the United Kingdom unless a draft of the proposed instrument of adoption has first been approved by Act of Parliament. '.

Mr. Shore: The Government are obviously in an accommodating mood, but I have not yet heard them say that they are prepared to accept new clause 2. No doubt a message will come to me encouraging me in my remarks. If the Government have a few manuscript amendments to make, I shall willingly accept them and we can then proceed.
We are all aware that there is much poison in the treaty. I would divide it into two sorts of poison. The first is the sort that we have just been discussing—the harsh, deflationary bias of the treaty and the appalling effect that it will have on a Europe which is already in deep recession. We have had discussions about what that means in terms of a European central bank, control of alleged excess deficits and the convergence criteria. I am talking not about that sort of poison, but about another sort—the transfer of powers and decision making from the people and Parliament, both of this country and of other countries in Europe, to European institutions.
Many transfers of power will take place under the Maastricht treaty. I refer not only to the extension of Community competence. Article 3, with its subclauses from (a) to (t), and the subsequent spelling out of what they mean, shows the vast number of our affairs that are to be handed over to the European Community. Those many new competencies include the introduction of a qualified majority vote which will take away any effective control that the House may exercise over its Ministers.
What does new clause 2 seek to achieve? It cannot deal with that which is already handed over in the Maastricht treaty, but it can at least put a brake upon the further transfers of power and competence which are envisaged in different parts of the treaty. We are seeking to make sure that the authority of an Act of Parliament would be needed before Ministers could accept further proposals to take powers and exercise them on a Community basis.
The House will agree that an Act of Parliament is necessary when I have given one or two illustrations. Before I do that, I want to say a word or two about new clause 4 in which we do not seek the authority of an Act of Parliament and are prepared to accept a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I refer to the provisions under foreign and security policy, where joint actions are envisaged.
As the House will remember, under the foreign and security policy which is far-reaching in its commitment and is the compass of the whole enterprise, there is provision for a common position and joint actions. Those joint actions could be of great importance. They could cover, for example, non-military sanctions and the recognition or non-recognition of states. When a common action is agreed, majority voting takes place within that range of matters dealt with by a joint action.
The new clause provides that when a joint action is proposed, before a Minister can assent to such a proposal he should first get the authority of both Houses of Parliment and a motion should come before both Houses

for that purpose. That is my one illustration of an area where a resolution would be right. We have proposed a resolution rather than an Act of Parliament because we are all aware that in foreign policy matters events move fast and there is not always the luxury of dealing with matters within the time scale of an Act of Parliament.
Let me turn back to where we want the authority of an Act of Parliament. Many parts of the treaty are important. I refer first to the proposals dealing with citizenship. As the House may recall, under article 8e, the discussion of the rights of citizenship ends as follows:
On this basis … the Council … on a proposal of the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisions to strengthen or to add to the rights laid down in this Part, which it shall recommend to the Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
As those who have read new clause 2 will see, we wish to see the words, "respective constitutional requirements" interpreted as an Act of Parliament and by no other means.
Citizenship is clearly extremely important. The rights of citizenship under article 8 are a modest beginning, but here is envisaged the extension of the rights of citizenship. We consider that proposals for extending those rights should be brought before the House and proper legislative authority be given for them if they meet with our approval.
I shall give just two illustrations of what might be thought to be a problem arising out of the extension of the rights of citizenship. One is the totally unrestricted right of movement and residence which is already allowed for in article 8a but which could be extended by the removal of those remaining constraints under article 8a, which states that it should be
subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.
People can otherwise move and reside freely throughout the Community.
The provisions go too far in any event and I have the strong feeling that there will be an attempt to expand them still further. As we know, voting rights are given to Community citizens wherever they may be so that they can take part in a local election and in a European Parliament election. That is already conceded under article 8c. I am willing to bet that the next step will be the right to take part in national elections. No such right should be extended without the proper consideration of the House, which should include full debate and full legislative proposals.
I have mentioned only rights so far. Article 8.2 provides:
Citizens of the Union shall enjoy the rights conferred by this Treaty and shall be subject to the duties imposed thereby.
The duties may be far less acceptable than the rights. We should keep a close watch on the duties and obligations that may be imposed on us.

Mr. Rowlands: What are they?

Mr. Shore: We have not yet had them defined. They are kept under wraps. A great deal of restraint is going on in the Community so that those who have not yet ratified the treaty are not frightened. There has been an almost Trappist vow of silence in the European Commission, which has been unusually quiet during these tense months of negotiation and debate.

Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend kindly responded to my sedentary request about what the duties were. He


said that we do not know yet. Will he tell us whether it is possible for the citizens of the union to renounce citizenship without renouncing national citizenship?

Mr. Shore: There appears to be no provision for any citizen to renounce European citizenship. It is imposed on people. The analogy that comes to my mind is the famous story of a Chinese general who baptised his army as Christians with a hosepipe. We are all being hosepiped with European citizenship and I do not find that at all attractive. It is important that we should retain the right to reject that imposed citizenship if we do not want it.

Mr. Spearing: My right hon. Friend tabled amendment No. 49, which was not selected, which might have given that democratic right. Does he agree that the word "rights" is ambiguous? Should not the right hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), who has happily joined us, elucidate the word now or later? If the right of a citizen was extended, the adjudication of that right would take place centrally. Therefore, the power of the central authority, of the court or wherever would be extended, perhaps by an Act of Parliament. That also applies to the right of the Community over its citizens. Should not we, therefore, get some explanation from the Minister of State, unless he is happily able, as in previous debates, to say that he accepts the new clause?

Mr. Shore: If the Minister wishes to intervene, I shall give way. Evidently he does not.
The question of duties and rights is, again, an area that we have not properly explored, although we have had a number of days of debate. We have done our best to explore the many important issues that are crammed together in this now five-clause Bill, which refers to more than 200 pages of treaty text.
The same problem arises about the procedures for electing the European Parliament. Again, we find in article 108.3 the following:
The European Parliament shall draw up proposals for elections by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States.
The Council shall, acting unanimously … which shall act by a majority of its component members, lay down the appropriate provisions, which it shall recommend to Member States for adoption in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
I believe that our constitutional requirement should, once again, be an Act of Parliament. I do not believe that we should agree to changing, as may well be the case, our electoral system for election of Members of the European Parliament to a European generalised system if it is not a system of which we approve. What we must face straight away is the whole complicated argument about whether we should have a form of proportional representation, because that is the system that the European Community will undoubtedly adopt. Any such change, therefore, should be the subject of serious debate in the House before any consent was given.
11.45 pm
That is a second example which I think is important. There is another one which is probably the most important of all, and it is in the area of home affairs and justice. A number of articles are called in question here. Article 100c, hon. Members on both sides will recall, deals on the face of it with the rather narrow matter of possession of visas and refers to the fact that from 1 January 1996 decisions about whether to have visas in relation to other, third

countries shall be made by a qualified majority vote on a proposal by the Commission. But more important than that and a little bit further down under the same article, paragraph 6 of 100c says:
This Article shall apply to other areas if so decided pursuant to Article K.9 of the provisions of the Treaty on European Union which relate to co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs, subject to the voting conditions determined at the same time.
So, inevitably and rightly, we turn to article K.9. What do we find there? After "The Council, acting unanimously", and so on, on the initiative of the Commission, we find:
may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community to action in areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6), and at the same time determine the relevant voting conditions relating to it. It shall recommend the Member States to adopt that decision in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.
Article K.1(1) to (6) deals with matters of enormous importance to the House. Section (1) deals with asylum policy. Section (2) deals with
rules governing the crossing by persons of the external borders of the Member States and the exercise of controls thereon".
We shall be faced with this still quite unresolved question of whether 200 or 300 Europeans, providing they wave a piece of purple cardboard, can come through a British port or airport without any further check. That has yet to be resolved, because the Commission takes one view and the Home Secretary, we hope, takes another, and the matter will presumably in the end be dealt with by the European Court of Justice. Anyway, here it is allowed specifically to come within a common policy in future and to be decided by qualified majority vote, because that is the essence of article 100c.
Section (3) of article K.1 concerns immigration policy and policy regarding nationals of third countries:
(a) conditions of entry and movement by nationals of third countries on the territory of Member States;
(b) conditions of residence by nationals of third countries on the territory of Member States, including family reunion and access to employment;
(c) combatting unauthorisied immigration, residence and work by nationals of third countries on the territory of Member States".
This is a huge and complex area and we have made many efforts in the past 30 or more years to devise immigration policies which, we hope, try to be fair and sensitive and to avoid racial discrimination in their application. I cannot say that we have always been successful, but that at least has been our purpose. I believe that any changes of this kind require an Act of Parliament and the most serious consideration by the House.
Paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of Article K.1 refer to
combatting drug addiction in so far as this is not covered by 7 to 9; combatting fraud on an international scale in so far as this is not covered by 7 to 9; judicial co-operation in civil matters".
These do not have quite the same dramatic impact as asylum, the removal of internal frontiers, and immigration policy, but any attempt to bring them under a common policy and to use majority voting procedures under this article should not be allowed without an Act of Parliament. We must insist on that, and that is what the new clause seeks to bring about.

Mr. George Robertson: The items that my right hon. Friend is discussing are certainly serious and important, and if any changes along these lines were made, Parliament would assume that they would be treated in a serious way. In building his case for the Bill to include a statutory


requirement for an Act of Parliament on every occasion, however, can my right hon. Friend point to any examples of measures of similar importance being dealt with in the House in ways less serious than what he proposes?

Mr. Shore: Many important changes have been effected, but I would have to search my memory for any such examples during the 21 years since we signed the treaty of accession. Irrespective of whether there have been examples of developments of Community competence that have not been incorporated in Acts of Parliament, however, I maintain that the instances that I have cited, of occasions when we are invited to approve measures according to our own constitutional requirements, are important enough to require Acts of Parliament.
My hon. Friend may tell me not to worry, but there is no guarantee that such changes would appear in Acts of Parliament. They might be put into effect by means of a resolution, or we might just be told that they had happened and then receive a report from the Minister. I am trying to maintain an element of parliamentary control and accountability over and for what could be major extensions of the treaty or what could be other major decisions.

Mr. Hoon: Perhaps I may put in a different way the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson). Although I agree about the serious nature of my right hon. Friend's illustrations, the difficulty is that none of his examples has led to Acts of Parliament. They have been dealt with in different ways under the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements. Perhaps they will be dealt with differently under those arrangements in future, but I cannot see that the Maastricht treaty makes any difference to the situation. We may have our criticisms of our constitution, but it is not necessarily changed, in this context, by the treaty.

Mr. Shore: Those constitutional arrangements consist of Ministers signing accords or of Ministers doing whatever they want and then reporting back to Parliament. Alternatively, they may interpose, before making a decision, a parliamentary procedure. And there are only two parliamentary procedures: one is a motion of both Houses; the other is an Act of Parliament. I have already said that a motion or resolution would be right, for reasons of time and speed, in the area of common action under foreign policy. I am citing the other areas where I believe strongly that there should be an Act of Parliament. If my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton wants to argue against that, let him do so when the time comes.

Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only purpose of the interventions of our hon. Friends was to question the need for an Act of Parliament? [Interruption.] They shake their heads; I am relieved at that. If there is anything less than an Act of Parliament, surely there is a risk that the Executive will be stronger, perhaps by a single vote. In respect of the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson), does my right hon. Friend recall that, when the original legislation was passed in 1972, there was no provision for an Act of Parliament to sanction any increase in the power of the European Parliament? That was imposed only at a time of direct elections. Clause 1(2)

of the Bill refers to the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1978, and the powers of the European Parliament in the treaty can be agreed only by virtue of that part of the clause. Does not that make the case for my hon. Friend's amendment rather than the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton?

Mr. Shore: I hope that I am carrying my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton. I expect the support of the whole Labour party for new clause 2. I cannot see any reason why he should fail to give full support to that new clause. I hope that there will be support from hon. Members in other parts of the House who are concerned that we should retain proper control over further actions which would reduce the competence, the authority and the power of this Parliament.

Mr. George Robertson: I have listened with care to my right hon. Friend. As he knows only too well, I cannot make definitive judgments on the spur of the moment about what the Opposition Front Bench can support. My right hon. Friend keeps hoping that I will be changed as the spokesman; that is one of his many hopes. Lest he took the wrong message from my first intervention, which was a genuine request for information, he should not draw anything more than that from it. Again I ask a question. My right hon. Friend has thought about it a lot and he is building his argument.
Based on what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon) has just said, there is a variety of constitutional ways in which the House of Commons, the House of Lords, or Parliament, might decide to deal with these matters, and which would conform to national constitutional arrangements. Might not an order in this House be a preferable instrument to an Act of Parliament that would involve the other place in the process? We might not feel that it was appropriate for the other place always to be involved in a cumbersome procedure to deal with all the matters that my right hon. Friend has laid out.

Mr. Shore: Orders or motions of approval are alternatives to Acts of Parliament. I remind my hon. Friend once more of the issues that I illustrated: one, extensions of the rights and possibly the duties of citizenship; two, the procedures for election to the European Parliament; three, the very important areas of asylum, immigration and related matters which come under justice and home affairs. I cannot believe that he could find any reason why we should not have a full parliamentary procedure and not simply a debate, whether it is carried out in this House alone or in both Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Bill Walker: I have been listening carefully because the right hon. Gentleman is getting into important areas that should properly be examined. Has he considered the rights and duties of the monarch of the United Kingdom? He will be aware that the monarch in Scotland is the Queen of Scots, not the Queen of Scotland. There is a substantial difference. The 1706 Act and the treaty of Union clearly spell out the position of the monarch and the monarch's heirs. [Interruption.] There is no point in hon. Members shaking their heads or laughing. That area could unravel this whole business. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered the position of the monarch?

Mr. Shore: I confess that I have given that little consideration. My general objection to compulsory


citizenship of the European union would become even more pointed if such citizenship were applied to the monarch who is also Head of the Commonwealth. Such compulsion would be absurd, and I am sure that that sentiment is widely shared.
My last illustration is important and relates to our constitutional procedures, the admission of new members to the European Community and the conditions under which they are allowed to join. Those issues should be subjected to serious debate and investigation before we allow a decision to be made on our behalf by the Community as a whole.
I have not attempted to identify in the treaty every conceivable instance of a constitutional procedure being allowed, but I think that I have identified most of them and I have certainly picked out the most important ones. I hope that we shall vote on the new clause and that I shall have the support not only of my Front-Bench colleagues but of hon. Members in all parts of the House. I shall be pleased if the Minister of State is as forthcoming in dealing with the new clause as he has been in dealing with all the other amendments that have been moved.

12 midnight

Mr. Garel-Jones: I regret that I shall have to disappoint the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) who, unusually for him, has moved a wrecking amendment. We are debating a House of Commons matter and I do not disguise the fact that the new clause is a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentlemen well knows, because he has been rebuked about it, that he cannot describe an amendment that has been allowed by the Chair as a wrecking amendment.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I accept that. By definition, any amendment selected by the Chair is not a wrecking amendment because it is in order. In case you thought that I was being disrespectful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should say that in my terms a wrecking amendment is one that would render the Government incapable of ratifying. The new clause and the other clauses and amendments that are grouped with it call for some sort of specific domestic procedure by which the House should register its approval of various activities carried out under the Maastricht treaty. I hope to demonstrate that not only in the specific matters to which the right hon. Gentleman referred is the new clause unnecessary, but that for reasons related to the traditional way in which the House organises its business it would be extremely unwise to include in an Act of Parliament the kind of procedural devices that the right hon. Gentleman seeks.
New clause 2 provides that where decisions taken by the Council, acting unanimously, are to be adopted by member states, in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements, an Act of Parliament shall be the constitutional requirement in the United Kingdom. It has been the practice that substantive changes brought about by the decision of the Council—for example, in relation to articles 138 on European Parliament electoral procedure, 201 on own resources, 236 on treaty amendment and 237 on the admission of new members —are covered by an Act of Parliament.
I can give the House some examples of that. There were accession Acts for Greece, Spain and Portugal. The

European Communities (Finance) Act 1988 gave effect to the own resources decision. The House judged, that. in order to meet our constitutional requirements, such measures required an Act of Parliament. Similarly, an Act is likely to be the most appropriate method to give domestic legal effect in United Kingdom law to any substantive changes brought about under article 18. The right hon. Gentleman referred to additions to the citizenship rights. Article K.9 deals with transfers into United Kingdom competence.
I remember having an exchange with my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who is not in his place but is in the House. I hope that those who have taken what one might generically call a sceptical view about the Government's wish to ratify the Maastricht treaty might be able, when new clauses and amendments such as this are moved, to step back from their opposition and to consider it as a House of Commons matter. I do not think that the House would wish, on reflection, to pre-empt the possibility of using a parliamentary procedure other than an Act of Parliament, as would be the case if the new clause were accepted. It may be that there could be a less significant substantial change for which the House might feel that an order under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972 would be entirely appropriate.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister saying that it is not within the option—I use that word carefully—of the House to determine the way in which the House, rather than the Government, determines its own United Kingdom constitutional arrangements for implementing those changes in the treaty? If he does not accept the new clause, he is saying that it is in the hands of the majority of the Administration of the day to choose whether it is done with an order under section 1(3), an hour and a half after 10 o'clock if one is lucky, or some other procedure. Why cannot it be, in principle, in the Bill?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am not saying that. I shall be dealing with those specific points later. The hon. Gentleman is rightly held in high regard in the House for the interest and the assiduity with which he attends not just European Community business but all business. I am astonished that his commitment to wrecking the Maastricht treaty is so strong that he is prepared, in a House of Commons matter, to write into an EC Act of Parliament the procedures of the House, to subject the House to the scrutiny of another place on matters that are our own procedures. He is well aware that the way that the House of Commons operates in procedure—I know that the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) will confirm this—is not on the basis of the Executive, whatever kind of majority it has, being able, in matters of procedure such as this, to ride roughshod over the wishes of the official Opposition or of the House as a whole. The hon. Gentleman knows that to be the case.

Mr. Spearing: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I want to make a little more progress. I shall return more specifically to that point and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene again I shall give way to him.
The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney also touched on new clause 4. It requires the Government to obtain approval in a resolution passed by both Houses


of Parliament before a Minister agrees to joint action. My contention—I hope that the House will accept this—is that there is no need for this new clause. I shall explain why.
The common foreign and security policy, including joint action, builds, as the House is well aware, on the close co-operation already established under European political co-operation through the Single European Act. Many actions taken under European political co-operation would fit the joint action criteria. It is certainly the Government's position that the best interests of the United Kingdom lie in co-operating with our partners on foreign policy issues to achieve a co-ordinated approach.
As in other areas of foreign policy, considerations of confidentiality and speed are vital to the effectiveness of policy. It would not be appropriate or effective to require the Government to seek parliamentary approval for each decision. In the past 10 days we have had the example of Bosnia-Herzegovina. The House was concerned and representations were made by the official Opposition and by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends. Of course, in such circumstances the Foreign Secretary needs to come to the House and to appear before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to give account of himself and the Government's actions in that matter to the House.
I assure the House that all major decisions under the common foreign and security policy will be taken by unanimity, including any decision on whether to use qualified majority voting on some procedural decisions on joint action. The Government would certainly not agree to any policy that they regarded as inimical to the United Kingdom's national interests. If hon. Members step back from the controversies that surround the treaty, they will accept that this Administration have not been criticised for not being willing to make statements to the House and appearances before the appropriate Select Committee.

Mr. Shore: I am not entirely convinced, because the nearest thing that we have had to a joint action, a common foreign policy, in Europe in recent years is the recognition of the various republics that once formed Yugoslavia. I strongly believe that the House would have benefited greatly from a debate before the Foreign Secretary agreed to that decision.

Mr. Garel-Jones: I do not agree. There have been a range of decisions under European political co-operation which would fit into the joint action criteria.
New clause 19, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), and new clause 38, in the name of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, refer to parliamentary approval for conventions drawn up under the justice and home affairs pillar. Paragraph 2(c) of article K.3, to which the new clauses refer, already requires such conventions to be recommended for adoption by the member states in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements. In other words, such conventions will acquire a kind of ratification by member states.
In the United Kingdom, the position will vary in accordance with well-established practice according to whether the convention requires any change in United Kingdom law before it can be given effect. If it did, Parliament's approval of the legislation would be required before ratification. If it did not, the Ponsonby rule would

apply and there would be the usual opportunities for debate. There is no need to treat international conventions drawn up under paragraph 2(c) of article K.3 any differently from those concluded elsewhere—such as in the United Nations.
I understand the wish of the right hon. Gentleman and of other right hon. and hon. Members to examine proposals, and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the House will be kept fully informed, as it is under our existing scrutiny procedures. As I explained in Committee, it is essentially a matter of how the House arranges its own procedures for scrutinising Community business. It is a question of domestic housekeeping for the House and wholly inappropriate for enshrinement in an Act of Parliament, as the amendments seek.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister's whole case is that these procedures are a continuation of European co-operation. Will he confirm that there was no suggestion that European co-operation of the kind that we have known would be subject to any form of qualified majority? Will he further confirm that a contentious decision—such as the recognition of a future Croatia—would only be reached by unanimity and would never be subject to a qualified majority process?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I made it clear that the decisions to move to qualified majority voting can be taken only by unanimity—and even then will only be for a limited period. It goes without saying that no United Kingdom Government of any political colour would agree to matters that we would regard as being of great consequences or which had a significant effect on our national interest being decided by qualified majority voting. I can give that commitment on behalf of not just this Administration but, I believe, any future Administrations.
I have tried to show that any changes under articles 138, 236, 237, and so on, would in any event be covered by an Act of Parliament. In Committee, I touched on the general point that it has not been the practice of the House to embody parliamentary procedures in legislation.

Mr. Spearing: This is not a procedure.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Perhaps I may continue. Procedures laid down in statute are, by definition, inflexible. If these procedures were found to be deficient in any way or in need of fine tuning, we would require additional legislation to make the necessary changes, however minor they might be.
That has two implications, which I ask the House to consider carefully. Changing an Act of Parliament by statute is a relatively slow process. It would eat away at parliamentary time that could be devoted to other purposes. Also, altering an Act of Parliament requires the consent of the House of Lords. I mean no disrespect to the other place in pointing out that the effect would be to surrender in some sense control over the internal procedures of this House to the other place.
I will give the House a good example of that. The existing scrutiny procedures of this House have proven themselves flexible to meet challenges in the past, and I believe that they will meet our new requirements. As I reminded the Committee, the 1990 review of scrutiny arrangements gave rise to two particularly significant developments. The six-monthly debates on European


Community developments were made more forward looking than in the past, and the two European Standing Committees were established.
In Committee, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—whom no right hon. or hon. Member would describe as a Euro-enthusiast but who is a member of European Standing Committee A—spoke well of the kind of scrutiny of EC directives that is undertaken in the European Standing Committees. She clearly thought—and I share her view—that the work done by those Committees was useful to the House.
The Procedure Committee's review in December 1991 of the first session of the new Standing Committees led to some minor changes. Hon. Members should note that, were these procedures enshrined in an Act of Parliament, even such minor changes would have required statutory backing. The new clause strikes me as a way of fettering the House's freedom of manoeuvre—as a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend suggests that he is concerned about tying the hands of the House. It seems more likely that he is concerned about tying the hands of the Whips and the Government's business managers. He said that we should not enshrine in legislation the way in which the House should deal with some future events arising from the European Community, but we are doing that in the Bill by saying that the single currency must be subject to an Act of Parliament.
The new clause seeks to add two other aspects. It does not apply to all Community legislation, but it seeks to add "changes in voting procedure" and circumstances in which a decision is made
after assent by member states and in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements".
It is suggested that that assent should also be by Act of Parliament. There is no difference between such matters being decided by Act of Parliament, and the single currency being decided by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Let me correct my hon. Friend. I think that clause 3 specifies that if the conditions were ever to pertain for Britain to consider going into a single currency, the matter must be debated in the House first. The essential point that he misses, however, is that a range of weapons is available to the House of Commons, allowing it to scrutinise the way in which Community business is handled.
I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present for the beginning of my speech, but a substantial part of the business would in any event be handled by Act of Parliament. I gave a number of examples of decisions taken in Council in which what we in the House would regard as constitutional requirements in the United Kingdom would involve an Act of Parliament. Certainly, any decisions made under the provisions for intergovernmental co-operation in the justice and home affairs pillar that would change the law in the United Kingdom would require an Act of Parliament; but a number of other decisions may not require an Act of Parliament. The House may need to scrutinise those in a different way.
For all my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North and I know, in the coming years—as the House becomes more accustomed to dealing with Community business—it may wish to elaborate on the Standing Committees that have already been set up, which give it additional powers. One of the beauties of the House of

Commons is its flexibility in this regard—its ability to scrutinise, and to call Ministers in for statements and debates.
I assure my hon. Friend that the Executive has substantial powers in the House; but, as someone who has spent quite some time working in the usual channels, I know that it is simply not possible to run the British Parliament if the Executive believes that it can trample over the Opposition's rights—and, indeed, the sentiment and the will of the House. That is part of the mix that goes into running the House.

Mr. Shore: The right hon. Gentleman says that it has not been the habit of this House to legislate on its own procedures and that the new clause would curtail the freedom of the House. When I hear remarks like that, I think that I am standing on my head. We are considering legislating on our own procedures precisely because it was never the habit of this Parliament, before the past 20 years, to hand over its powers to agencies outside its control and to submit itself to their superior authority and to treaty law. That is the essence of the difference. The purpose of my new clause is to impose stricter parliamentary control over any further transfer of powers. That, surely, the Minister understands.

Mr. Garel-Jones: Of course I understand that, but, with the greatest respect, the real position of the right hon. Gentleman—it is a perfectly respectable one, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was prepared to resign from the Administration on account of it, which was not a light decision to take—is that he has never accepted the treaty of Rome. As he says, for 20 years or more, a parliamentary practice has built up. I maintain that the scrutiny requirements and procedures of the House will almost certainly need to be reviewed—in particular, the examination of activity under the two intergovernmental pillars—at an appropriate time, not just through the usual channels but by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The House, in its own way, will grope its way towards what it considers to be the right and appropriate procedure for keeping a check on Ministers.
For the reasons I have given, I do not believe that the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is a suitable vehicle for changing the scrutiny arrangements of the House.

Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend corrected me. Can I try to correct my right hon. Friend? If I am incorrect, he can correct me again. My right hon. Friend said, with regard to the single currency, that it was not necessary to have an Act of Parliament. I think that he referred to clause 3 of the Bill. However, clause 2 says that
No notification shall be given to the Council of the European Communities that the United Kingdom intends to move to the third stage … unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament".

Mr. Garel-Jones: I stand corrected. My hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Spearing: To use the Minister's words, we are now about to grope, are we not? Does he not make the distinction, which we make, between report and scrutiny on the one hand and control on the other? We are talking about parliamentary control, not all the other issues that the Minister mentioned. Can he help me to determine


whether I am mistaken, or whether he is ignorant, or whether he is trying to deceive the House? One of those three must, I think, be right.
About 10 minutes ago, the Minister said that it is not the practice of the House to lay down what procedures shall be found within an Act, but surely he agrees that Acts of Parliament abound with requirements for reports and with requirements for statutory instruments—whether it be an ordinary order, an order that is subject to the negative procedure or an order that requires resolution —to be made by Ministers to achieve a certain purpose. That happens thousands of times in Acts of Parliament. Why should we not say that we do not want a resolution, we want an Act of Parliament?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The answer to those three questions is that there is a fourth question. The hon. Gentleman deceives himself. It is a matter of judgment for the House. It is not a question of the different views that are held about the merits of the Maastricht treaty. I believe that the flexibility that the House has to change and alter its procedures will be needed by the House in the years to come as the functioning of the treaty on European union gets under way.
As I said in Committee, I am sure that the irony of the situation would not be lost on the House were any of the new clauses to be accepted because our procedure would then effectively be regulated by a piece of European legislation, which is not a happy prospect for those of us anxious to preserve the House's position.

Mr. Spearing: I shall take up the Minister's point straight away. He claims that he will resist the new clause because it is anti-Parliament and something which will bind our successors in a way that they would not wish to be bound. He is nodding his head, but I think that he, not my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), is standing on his head.
Is the Minister afraid of an Act of Parliament which will affect any future Administration, not just the current one? We are talking about the next X number of years, as long as the treaty lasts. I thank the Minister for his initial statement and I agree that the debate is about the scrutiny of procedures and about control. At the beginning of his speech, the Minister properly said that, if the new clause were accepted, it would not affect ratification of the treaty in any way. As he rightly says, we are discussing House of Commons procedure.
In a homely term, the Minister said that we should not write into an Act how Parliament should operate in what he called a "housekeeping" capacity. I suggest that it was a slightly misleading term because our procedures in relation to housekeeping come under the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services), along with the way in which the buildings operate, the salaries and wages of staff and even our own returns. There is a great difference between the order of the House under the rules of procedure, which are neutral and which cross the whole range of activity, whether it be a question on foreign affairs or an Adjournment debate—the latter has brought down a Government before now—and what the Minister is now saying. The Minister is saying that he does not want any future Executive to be bound by the duty and need to bring

an Act of Parliament. He says that it is a rigidity which will bind the House itself. Surely, the real binding is the binding of the Executive of the day.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The hon. Gentleman must not put words into my mouth. I began my remarks by giving a list of instances in which, on past practice, it is well accepted that an Act of Parliament would be the constitutionally appropriate way for the House to give its assent. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) waggled one of those instances—changes in the electoral process for the European Parliament—before the House as a skeleton. I am saying that the new clause seeks to cast the net in such a way as to make it not only cumbersome but inconvenient for the House.
None of us is naive and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that under many of our procedures the usual channels have to dragoon hon. Members in to keep the debates going. Let us not deceive ourselves about what we would be shackling the House with. In matters of scrutiny, I believe that the two new Standing Committees have been successful. The House has the ability to build on them and will do so. I do not want that process to be inhibited by an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Spearing: I do not think that I misunderstood what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. Just before I gave way, my charge was that the shackles were not on the House but on the Executive and Government of the day. With due respect, he has not answered that charge. Clearly, a requirement in the Bill for, say, a resolution or an affirmative order would mean a requirement on the Government.
As it happens, an Act of Parliament rather than a resolution is specified in the set of amendments. That shackle is stronger and bigger and it may be a more inconvenient and cumbersome instrument, but it is not in a different category; it is an obligation of the Administration of the day towards the House. Surely that is the essence of the matter.

Mr. Garel-Jones: rose—

Mr. Spearing: I shall give way in a moment, but first may I draw the Minister's attention to the fact that that is not a cut-and-dried issue? I shall reply to what he said to me before I give way again. He may say that in the past there has been an Act of Parliament for this, that or the other, but may I remind him of a certain famous occasion on which Lady Thatcher of Kesteven said that there would be an intergovernmental agreement to raise the financial contribution. Does the Minister remember how the Government got round the 1 per cent. arrangement? The money was topped up through an intergovernmental agreement outside the treaty. As the Minister said, an attempt was made to do that under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) is in the Chamber, because I intend to talk about something that happened during his premiership, or just afterwards. Under section 1(3) of the 1972 Act a simple affirmative order in the House, which would have agreed the treaty, was tried. There was a challenge in the courts and a judicial review and a separate Act of Parliament—a Consolidated Fund Bill—had to be introduced instead of the order that the Government of the day tried to use.
I tell the Minister, therefore, that the practice is not a rigid one. One cannot always rely on custom and practice, unless the precedents are well built in. The example that I have given shows that the House had to go through the financial procedure of a Consolidated Fund Bill to agree to the payment out of the Consolidated Fund, because there was not an automatic Community obligation under the European Communities Act introduced by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup.

Sir Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Spearing: I shall give one more example before giving way again to the Minister.
Shortly after the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup ceased to be Prime Minister there was a debate when he was in opposition and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were in government. A statutory instrument was introduced under section 1(3) of the European Communities Act, designating five or six treaties—they made quite a high pile—as Community treaties. One of those treaties altered the arrangements of the European Parliament on non-obligatory expenditure and the way in which the tennis match took place vis-á-vis the Council of Ministers. That effectively altered the treaty of Rome by way of a statutory instrument that did not even mention the treaty. The amendment to the treaty was contained in a schedule to the order. That is how the Community has been able to deal with legislation and obligations in the past, by a subterranean method; perhaps that will happen again in the future.
To ensure that there is proper control of the House, as opposed to reportage and scrutiny, which is a different function and can bring about only a certain amount of visibility, there has to be an Act of Parliament. No Government, including the present Government, should try to suggest that we demote that method in favour of some other way, as yet undefined. The Minister has not said that he thinks that a statutory instrument resolution would be better. The method could involve section 1(3) or any one of all sorts of other means. So the Minister is using subterranean tactics, which are too flexible for comfort in this highly charged and vital matter of public control. Does the Minister wish me to give way to him now?

Mr. Garel-Jones: indicated dissent.

Sir Teddy Taylor: After our experience involving merchant shipping and the Spanish fishermen, is not it rather silly to try to pretend that Acts of Parliament passed by the House can any longer give rights to the people of Britain? In connection with what the Minister said about article K, if there were an agreement by unanimity that we should, for example, allow the entry of 100,000 people from eastern Europe, and if that required parliamentary legislation and the House rejected that legislation, would the rights disappear? Would the 100,000 people from eastern Europe have no rights, simply because the Houses of Parliament had turned the legislation down? After all the Acts that we have passed and all the treaties that we have agreed, is it not bogus nonsense to pretend that Acts of Parliament can afford any protection now, when they can be overturned by European agreements interpreted by the European Court?

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman tempts me down a road that I do not wish to travel because for once the Minister and I agree that the matter relates to

parliamentary procedure. I should be adducing the same argument if I were on the Government Benches, even if I were in favour of the Bill.
What the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) says may or may not be true, but it is clear from the Minister's remarks that citizens of the United Kingdom are being deprived of the right to peruse a parliamentary measure that has been published and put on the Table and on which there must be a Second Reading, Committee stage, Third Reading and perhaps a Report stage in another place. They are being deprived of the opportunity to know what is being done in their name by their representatives as a result of the sort of decision that the Minister is taking today. In that respect, he is not only taking away power from the people and this House, but at the same time is reducing visibility.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The House knows that, even if the hon. Gentleman were on these Benches, he would be arguing the same case with the same vehemence. I shall not labour the point further, but his problem is that he has never accepted the treaty of Rome.
The hon. Gentleman might have reminded the House that the judicial review to which he referred was won by the Government of the day and that that Government chose afterwards to proceed by way of an Act. There should be choice in such matters, with the right legislative method being adopted in each case.
There being many experienced hon. Members present, I need not labour the point that the hon. Gentleman seemed to imply that section 1(3) orders were a kind of pushover. In fact, they require affirmative resolutions in both Houses. The hon. Gentleman is slightly spinning the ball in the wrong direction on that matter.

Mr. Spearing: I agree that that judicial review was lost by the person who brought it, now deceased. But is the Minister really saying that if that had not been challenged in the courts, the Government would have produced an Act? Of course not. The order in question was printed and laid. Was not it legitimate for a citizen of this country to bring the matter into the open? I agree that the Government of the day, perhaps using their wise discretion, took a certain course. Even the present Government occasionally wander into the area of wise discretions, as they did earlier today when they accepted some amendments.
The Conservative Government under the previous premiership may not have been too good at doing that. They did not see some of the rocks ahead. But the present Government are more sapient in that respect. Why should the citizen be denied the opportunity to erect warning lights, even by taking court action? The fact that the Minister reminds us that the case was lost, and that the Government took some notice of it, reinforces my point.
The Minister claims that statutory instruments are no pushover. I accept that on occasions they may not be, but he knows from his experience of many years in office that on certain days, when business is light after the main debate and an instrument comes up after 10 o'clock, it is not difficult to get through important abstruse matters after a one and a half hour debate. As for visibility, a statutory instrument does not have the visibility of a Bill.
I reinforce the important points made my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney relating to new clause 4 and foreign and security policy. I


want the Minister of State to comment on that subject as I do not understand it. People think that I have read the treaty many times, but I am mystified by the specific sequence of events. It is important because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney said, we have recently expressed a unanimous decision on Croatia—on which there were various views that I shall not adumbrate.
12.45 am
Article J.3 states:
1. Whenever the Council decides on the principle of joint action, it shall lay down the specific scope, the Union's general and specific objectives in carrying out such action, if necessary its duration, and the means, procedures and conditions for its implementation.
2. The Council shall, when adopting the joint action and at any stage during its development, define those matters on which decisions are to be taken by a qualified majority. Where the Council is required to act by a qualified majority pursuant to the preceding subparagraph, the votes of its members shall be weighted in accordance with Article 148(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, and for their adoption, acts of the Council shall require at least fifty-four votes in favour, cast by at least eight members.
I am puzzled about the stage at which there is a change of gear. The Council—I presume, the Foreign Affairs Council—is simultaneously acting in various dimensions. It is dealing with scope, general objectives, specific objectives, duration, means, procedures and conditions for implementation. The treaty states that the Council shall
when adopting the joint action"—
presumably in the process of deciding to do so—
and at any stage during its development"—
foreign affairs certainly develop
define those matters on which decisions are to be taken by a qualified majority.
It does not state which form of voting will be used to do so. It does not state whether the voting will have to be unanimous. The treaty is a difficult one to read and no doubt somewhere within it—the article may be at the fingertips of the Minister of State, who may be present in the Council where the voting is being held—is the procedure to be followed when decisions are being taken on whether to move from common action to that requiring a qualified majority vote. Perhaps such a move would require a unanimous vote. A well-laid-out treaty should state the means by which that decision is made.
Therefore, I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney. It would be for the benefit of the country and the House to know if, when that change of gear takes place, subsequent assent is needed to a policy that is to be a common policy. There have been difficulties in Europe—in former Yugoslavia—and we can imagine problems anywhere in the world to which the procedure would apply. We can imagine it being applied to problems that we have experienced in the past two or three years. What would happen within the joint Council when the matter is decided by a qualified majority vote? How would the House retain its influence and control? At present, on anything that is tabled in co-operation or unanimity, the House can have an Adjournment debate and the supporters can chunter away in the Members' Lobby, the Tea Room, or by letter or deputation, and tell the Foreign Secretary what they are willing to tolerate. They have

probably been doing that over recent events. The Government know that they must keep within those lines —that is the hidden force of Members of Parliament.
However, if the matter is decided on qualified majority voting, the Minister can bargain. We know what happens in the European Community—there is package bargaining in the Council. If a matter is to be decided by qualified majority voting, one decision is offset against another. That is done in the Committee of Permanent Representatives, which is—and always was—part of the treaty. One of the functions of that Committee, which is not often mentioned in the House and about which I know a little, is that of a sort of bargaining place where one makes a minor concession to gain what one considers to be a major concession. It is, in a sense, a policy market and it has a currency. If I am wrong, the Minister will correct me. Perhaps he will clarify two points. First, on change of gear, how and by what method is it achieved? Secondly, although we are not voting on it as unfortunately it has not been selected, in those circumstances, why should not the House control that Minister, who might well be outvoted anyway, by resolution rather than by general debate and what passes for scrutiny?

Mr. Garel-Jones: In passing, let me ask the hon. Gentleman a question. Were it appropriate, would he like to see similar controls over decisions taken by unanimity in the Security Council of the United Nations, or is it just the Community that he finds offensive? Unanimity is the general rule for common and security policy as set out in article J.8(2):
The Council shall act unanimously, except for procedural questions and in the case referred to in Article j.3(2).
That means that any decisions to use qualified voting will be taken by unanimity.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification and simply express the thought that it might have been better drafted by putting it in a different place in the treaty. However, we are relieved to know that that is so.
The Minister asked me a personal question about the Security Council, but I do not consider it to be comparable. The United Nations, which many of us heavily support, is an international organisation in which individual nations get together and fulfil their roles, co-operating where they can and, one hopes, all the time, but our Foreign Secretary and our Prime Minister speak for the United Kingdom.
The treaty will require a certain amount of harmonisation even in the United Nations, as in every international forum, and that will blunt the originality in foreign affairs for which the United Kingdom is known. Be that as it may, I would answer the Minister's question by saying that it is a different matter. In many foreign policy matters, we will have a common policy, some of which may be subject to qualified majority voting. It is entirely different.
I know that the Secretary of State has said in that beautiful way of his—he is very skilled—"But this is nothing more than we have at the moment. We have it under title 3 of the Single European Act. We have come together under political co-operation; we shall have a few more political directives and hot it up a bit, but it is only putting into treaty form what we already have." However, it is not. What we have at the moment is co-operation, or so we are told by the Foreign Secretary, in which any


member state is free to say, "I am sorry, but we cannot go along with that," and they exercise their common judgment.
As the Minister said, states do not have to come to a common view on anything. However, there is pressure in article J to reach a common view and a presumption that, where possible, we shall come to a common foreign policy. I am glad that the Minister is nodding in agreement. The presumption to come to that common view is stronger than the desirability in the Single European Act. The Minister now shakes his head, but any reading of the treaty comparing the two groups of articles would suggest that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stephney referred to Croatia. May I refer the Minister to the Foreign Secretary's words in one of the last debates in Committee? When tackled on the matter, he said that it was perfectly true that the Germans were changed in their view on the recognition of Croatia. He said that if it had not been for the necessity for a common decision, the Germans would have recognised Croatia earlier than was the case. He then said that the United Kingdom would have recognised Croatia some time earlier than was the case. I do not have the exact words, but I know that they were something of that kind. The Foreign Secretary did not say how much sooner the United Kingdom would have recognised Croatia. We are now in a different ballgame altogether and I am surprised that the Minister denies that.

Mr. Garel-Jones: In the United Nations, an organisation that the hon. Gentleman and I strongly support, the United Kingdom seeks, along with other members of the Security Council, to arrive, whenever it can, at consensus and unanimous decisions. The hon. Gentleman, I and most hon. Members regard such international cooperation as a good thing. It is, of course, true that in the context of the United Nations, the United Kingdom sometimes makes concessions and sometimes makes changes to its policy to arrive at international agreement. The hon. Gentleman approves of that. I do not understand why he does not approve of similar efforts to co-operate with other nation states in a European context. I believe that the reasons is that the hon. Gentleman has never accepted either the treaty of Rome or Britain's membership of the Community, and that he is obsessed about those matters.

Mr. Spearing: One may not go along with a particular Act, perhaps because one is in opposition. The Minister was not here when his party was in opposition. Is he saying that, just because a certain Government are in power and because certain Acts of Parliament are enshrined in the law of the state, one must go along with those laws? Of course, one must obey them. Is the Minister saying that one must stop arguing against them or saying that they are wrong in principle? Even his hon. Friends said, time after time, that the poll tax was wrong in principle. Is the Minister denying their right to say that?

Mr. Garel-Jones: indicated dissent.

Mr. Spearing: The Minister says no. What difference is there between the right of hon. Members to dissent from an Act of Parliament or a policy imposed by one

Government and their right, in a measured, logical, careful and accurate way, to dissent from a change in the constitution of this land?

Mr. Gard-Jones: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's right to dissent. It is already well established that qualified majority voting can be agreed to only by unanimity. I am making a genuine effort to understand why the lion. Gentleman finds co-operation between member states in the United Nations so laudable and why he finds similar efforts to co-operate with member states in the European context so offensive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. The debate is straying somewhat beyond the group of new clauses. May we get back to the new clauses, please?

Mr. Spearing: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am referring to new clause 4 which relates to the lack of a resolution on a single foreign policy. There is a great difference between co-operation between nations that are members of the United Nations and the position of members of the Community which are bound together by much more than co-operation. They are bound together by a structure of authority.
To return to the main question of the debate, we are debating the question of by what authority changes in the structure of that authority are made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney made a powerful case for the House agreeing to or not agreeing to those changes by Act of Parliament. The Minister, in his speech and in his interventions, has dissembled on that point by saying that the House must retain flexibility.
I put it to him that what he wishes to retain is not the power of the House, but the power of any Government of the day to get round what otherwise might be the proper procedures of the House in relation to treaty changes, changes that should be made only by Act of Parliament in the full procedure of those Acts, so that the British public knows what is going on and hon. Members have the maximum opportunity to control the Government of the day.

1 am

Mr. George Robertson: I rise to contribute briefly to this interesting debate. I do not intend to take the time of the House to deal with the new clauses which have not been selected; that will be a mercy to the House as well as to me. I would, however, like to comment on new clause 2, the Second Reading of which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) moved and which I think he will accept is the most important of the new clauses in this group.
There is considerable difficulty for the House, for those of us who are interested and those of us who are obliged to be interested, when Madam Speaker makes a selection for the debate ahead of us at 12 noon, because it is hard to give attention to the detail in the new clauses in the available time. So if my right hon. Friend thinks that his new clause has received inadequate attention and that perhaps I have come to it late in the day—or late in the morning, as it now is—he will not be surprised at what has happened, because we were both standing in the No Lobby at 12 noon today, waiting to see which of the large number of new clauses and amendments had been selected for debate by Madam Speaker.
The question before us this morning, therefore, is whether we should accept, or whether I should recommend to Labour Members that we support, my right hon. Friend's new clause 2 which would impose a requirement that in future, where there is any change in the voting procedure in the Council of Ministers or where the treaty prescribes that respective constitutional requirements be put in place, it can be done in this country only by Act of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) have given a number of examples where they are afraid of significant changes taking place in the voting procedure or where it might well be circumvented or where an Act of Parliament procedure would not be involved. The Minister, however, has made it clear that in the case of the changes that would be required by article 8e and by article K.9 of the treaty an Act of Parliament would be involved. He has given that assurance to the House this evening, and it is now on the record.
The issue with which we must concern ourselves now, therefore, is whether the prescription that my right hon. Friend lays down in the new clause is appropriate in all other situations that might come up. The Minister has sought to persuade the House that we should not lay down procedures in an Act of Parliament that would bind the House in the future. He said so with some conviction but not necessarily with great persuasiveness. What we must decide is whether my right hon. Friend seeks to cover too many instances in too heavy-handed a fashion perhaps and whether, to borrow a phrase already employed by the Minister, we are using a sledgehammer to crack a nut—or several nuts.
I should like to come at my right hon. Friend from a different direction, however, briefly. I am not convinced —and when tomorrow he reads the Labour party's new policy document on Europe he will see a line of reasoning there—that an Act of Parliament is the most appropriate way for us to give proper scrutiny to the sort of measures that he put forward. In the past, I have shared his dissatisfaction with the way in which the House deals with EC business, and I have thought that we should strengthen our scrutiny procedures. The setting up of European Standing Committees A and B was due in part to pressure exerted by my Front-Bench colleagues and me, to make sure that some of this legislation was given more detailed attention.
Some of the policy documents quoted by my hon. Friends have suggested the creation of a European Grand Committee, in part composed of some of the Members who are here at this ungodly hour and who might more regularly and consistently look at general issues of policy connected with the European Community. All too infrequently do we debate some of the most weighty issues raised by my right hon. Friend this evening.
I have always believed that the Ponsonby procedures governing the ratification of treaties were inadequate. It seems crazy that the House may be asked, in Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, to give detailed consideration to the diplomatic immunity that will attach to inspectors who come under arms control treaties, but that it will have no opportunity to discuss the arms control treaties themselves. We may discuss the treaty on

European union only because it requires changes in United Kingdom law. We were able to discuss the parts of the treaty that do not require such changes only because amendments were tabled, often by me, to include such parts of the treaty in our law.
There is an admirable case to be made for looking again at the way in which the House treats these matters. I believe, however, that the new clause is unduly prescriptive. It might be too burdensome if we demanded that the House pass an Act of Parliament each time these issues are considered. I believe that this ratification process is infinitely preferable to a referendum because, over a lengthy period, the House has been able to discuss the complex issues surrounding the treaty, often adding to the education of people inside and outside the House.
Sometimes, though, an Act of Parliament is not the best procedure. In the context of the new thinking which will have to be completed on how best to scrutinise European legislation, I fear that my right hon. Friend's new clause is both too demanding and too restrictive, and I cannot recommend that my hon. Friends support it in the Lobby this evening. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not press it to a Division at this stage.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 38, Noes 275.

Division No. 256]
[1.08 am


AYES


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Livingstone, Ken


Barnes, Harry
Lord, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F.
McWilliam, John


Boyce, Jimmy
Marlow, Tony


Budgen, Nicholas
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Cash, William
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Cohen, Harry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Cran, James
Simpson, Alan


Cryer, Bob
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Skinner, Dennis


Davidson, Ian
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Gill, Christopher
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Graham, Thomas
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wise, Audrey


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Wray, Jimmy


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Nigel Spearing and Mr. Ted Rowlands.


Lewis, Terry





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Beresford, Sir Paul


Aitken, Jonathan
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Alexander, Richard
Booth, Hartley


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Ancram, Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia


Arbuthnot, James
Bowden, Andrew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowis, John


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brandreth, Gyles


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkins, Robert
Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Browning, Mrs. Angela


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Burns, Simon


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Butler, Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Butterfill, John


Bates, Michael
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Batiste, Spencer
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Bellingham, Henry
Carrington, Matthew






Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hannam, Sir John


Chapman, Sydney
Hargreaves, Andrew


Churchill, Mr
Harris, David


Clappison, James
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hawkins, Nick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hayes, Jerry


Coe, Sebastian
Heald, Oliver


Colvin, Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Congdon, David
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Conway, Derek
Hendry, Charles


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hicks, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Cormack, Patrick
Horam, John


Couchman, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Dafis, Cynog
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Day, Stephen
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Devlin, Tim
Jack, Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Duncan, Alan
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Dunn, Bob
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Durant, Sir Anthony
Key, Robert


Dykes, Hugh
Kilfedder, Sir James


Elletson, Harold
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Kirkwood, Archy


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Knox, David


Evennett, David
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Faber, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Fabricant, Michael
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Leigh, Edward


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Fishburn, Dudley
Lidington, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Forth, Eric
Llwyd, Elfyn


Foster, Don (Bath)
Luff, Peter


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Maclean, David


Gale, Roger
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gallie, Phil
Madel, David


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Maitland, Lady Olga


Garnier, Edward
Malone, Gerald


Gillan, Cheryl
Mans, Keith



Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Marland, Paul


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gorst, John
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grylls, Sir Michael
Merchant, Piers


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Milligan, Stephen


Hague, William
Mills, Iain


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Monro, Sir Hector


Hanley, Jeremy
Montgomery, Sir Fergus





Moss, Malcolm
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Needham, Richard
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



Nelson, Anthony
Steen, Anthony


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stephen, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stern, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stewart, Allan



Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Sumberg, David


Norris, Steve
Sykes, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Oppenheim, Phillip
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Ottaway, Richard
Temple-Morris, Peter


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Patnick, Irvine
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thurnham, Peter


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pickles, Eric
Tracey, Richard



Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Tredinnick, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Trend, Michael


Powell, William (Corby)
Trotter, Neville


Rathbone, Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Redwood, John
Tyler, Paul


Richards, Rod
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Walden, George


Robathan, Andrew
Wallace, James


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Waller, Gary


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Ward, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Waterson, Nigel


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Sackville, Tom
Whitney, Ray


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wigley, Dafydd


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Willetts, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wilshire, David


Sims, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Tellers for the Noes:


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. David Lightbown and Mr. Andrew Mackay.


Spring, Richard



Sproat, Iain

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): For the convenience of the House, let me make it clear that the Chair understands that new clause 22 has been withdrawn.

Clause 1

TREATY ON EUROPEAN UNION

Amendment made: No. 43, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'II' to 'III' in line 13.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Further consideration of the Bill adjourned.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered this day.

PETITION

Colin Albert Jennison

Ms Majorie Mowlam: I am pleased to have the opportunity to present to the House a petition on behalf of many inhabitants of Cleveland who are deeply concerned and worried by the sentence passed on Mr. Colin Albert Jennison of two years for the manslaughter of his wife Elizabeth. It calls on the Attorney-General to review the policy of sentencing of those found guilty of the manslaughter of wives.

To lie upon the Table.

Pornography

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I come to this Adjournment debate with mixed feelings. I am pleased to have won the opportunity to raise again the concern that I and many colleagues in all parts of the House feel about the availability of explicit and violent pornography in this country, through an increasingly wide range of technological media. I am saddened that the debate is necessary and that the House will have to listen again to a Minister seeking to persuade us that all is well, that action is under way on a number of fronts, and that the key statute in this area, the Obscene Publications Act 1959, should be left well alone. At least, that is what I expect the Minister to say, but I shall be delighted if I am proved wrong and he chooses the opportunity to announce the fundamental review of the test of obscenity in the 1959 Act that is so necessary.
I will come in a moment to the individual types of technology that can now be used to transmit pornography, but the initial focus of concern, in the House and outside, last spring and summer was an horrific example of degrading material produced on what is an old form of technology, the printing press. I refer, of course, to the book "Juliette" published by Arrow Books in 1991 and containing a litany of extremely violent acts against children, women, the mentally ill—indeed, anyone who was available to be tortured, raped, sexually assaulted and murdered. The publication of such material evoked great concern in this House, and after a briefing paper containing extracts had been made available to honourable Members early-day motion 312 quickly obtained over 100 signatures.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne), in her first Adjournment debate, chose to raise the issue and expressed astonishment that the Director of Public Prosecutions had decided that action against the book under the 1959 Act was unlikely to succeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) told the Minister that, in 15 years in the Army, he had never seen such horrific material as that contained in "Juliette". The best that the Minister could do in response to that pressure was to argue that
a number of well-rounded measures exist to deal with pornography as it occurs."—[Official Report, 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 1068.]
I have emphasised the case of "Juliette" at some length because if our law is inadequate to deal with what is an extremely old form of technology—publishing—I seriously question how effective it can be for newer forms of technology which are more sophisticated and change with each passing day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Dr. Spink) picked up that concern when he sought leave to introduce a ten-minute Bill on 27 October 1992. He drew attention to the problems of satellite television and computer pornography. He described the 1959 Act as the keystone in the legislative arch dealing with pornography —but, sadly, a keystone that was crumbling.
The responses that we received from the Government to all that parliamentary concern was hesitant and mixed. There had been one meeting at the Home Office in July,


and although the Minister listened carefully, nothing was promised. A meeting with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister then took place in November. I am glad to say that we received a more positive response from my right hon. Friend who showed great personal concern about the kinds of pornography available and, in particular, the difficulties proposed by new technology. We were assured that the Home Office would look at the matter more closely.
Many more hon. Members realised the true extent of the problem when the hard-working officers of the obscene publications squad of the Metropolitan police at Scotland Yard came to the House on 24 and 25 February this year to put on an exhibition of the kinds of material with which they have to deal daily, and the need for tougher laws. Some 300 Members of both House of Parliament attended that exhibition over the two days. Members did not attend out of some prurient interest but to satisfy themselves whether the concerns that others expressed were based on fact or fiction.
The exhibition included all kinds of material. Extracts from "Juliette" were again displayed. Material from pornographic magazines was on show. Child pornorgraphy in all its horror was depicted graphically, through photographs and video material. Adult video pornography, including films certified by the British Board of Film Classification as so-called "sex education", were shown, as were excerpts from the notorious Red Hot Dutch television channel. A computer was also available to demonstrate the problems of that technology.
Since that event, the Home Office has sought to suggest that virtually all the material on display was illegal under the current law. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister repeated that claim in a letter to me last week. I have to say that that is not the information that I have received from the Metropolitan police, from the Attorney-General or from the Crown Prosecution Service. Some of the material on display, especially the child pornography, has been the subject of successful prosecutions under current law, but even in that area prosecutions against computerised child pornography have run into problems. I have already mentioned how "Juliette" could not be acted against, and Red Hot Dutch television is currently the subject of action, the impact of which we have yet to see. At the exhibition, the Metropolitan police described the difficulties that they have with the current law. It is disingenuous to suggest that those difficulties lie only with enforcement and plugging minor gaps. Any positive action is welcome, but a fundamental review is necessary.
That brings me to the problems of particular technological media. I refer briefly to videos, telephone pornography, computers and satellite television. The video recorder has transformed the lifestyles of many people in this country. Sadly, however, as seems to be the case with many things that bring pleasure, there are sleazy business men who seek to exploit a commercial opportunity through demeaning and degrading others. Video nasties quickly became the scourge of our society in the early 1980s and were dealt with only after my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright) introduced his private Member's Bill which became the Video Recordings Act 1984. The regulatory system introduced in that Act has largely worked well. But in the past couple of years signs have emerged that the pornographers have found

new ways of getting around the 1984 Act and have thrown the interpretation of the 1959 Act obscenity test into further doubt.
In 1991, the British Board of Film Classification decided to grant a certificate to a video purporting to be sex education. I am advised that that film, taken on its own and viewed by a couple who are committed partners, could have some benefit. However, many warned at the time that that type of film was bending the standard and that pornographers would be quick to exploit it. They were right.
The BBFC's latest annual report includes recognition by the board that it might have to relax standards for videos having no educational purpose available in sex shops—the so-called R18 category—because of the explicitness of scenes in sex education videos.
Scotland Yard's obscene publications squad also reported that, in its view, some so-called sex education material is as explicit as other videos that it had previously prosecuted under the 1959 Act. It seems that the BBF'C is wrongly seeking to become the arbiter of what is obscene rather than the courts.
Another new medium greatly exploited by pornographers in the past eight years is premium rate telephone services—0898 numbers. I will not rehearse here the ins and outs of that particular industry because the hon. Member for Worsley (Mr. Lewis)—whom I admire for his vigilance—has done so many times in the House, most recently in his Adjournment debate on 14 December last year.
I am pleased to say that there are, in that regard, some grounds for encouragement. In common with many right hon. and hon. Members, I have not been impressed over the years with the premium rate telephone industry's self-regulatory body—the Independent Committee for the Supervision of Telephone Information Services. It is difficult to have confidence in a body that had to revise its draft code of practice six times in as many years to regulate an industry that is worth more than £ 200 million per annum.
Moreover, when we consider that the chairman of that body for most of its six years' of existence was quoted in the The Mail on Sunday on 25 February 1990 as saying
I couldn't care a hoot. Why shouldn't people engage in private conversatons about pornography?",
the House will understand why one had little confidence in the ICSTIS. It now has a new chairman, Brenda Dean, whom I met last week to discuss how she is tackling the problems. I wish her well in her new appointment.
No advertisements for such lines should appear in any publication, other than those that might be found on the top shelf in a newsagent. I do not understand why such degrading services should be available from every home in the United Kingdom that has a telephone. Telephone subscribers should be able to receive such services only if they deliberately choose to opt in. The current system of call barring is akin to closing the gate after the horse has bolted.
As to satellite television, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will state tonight the current state of the Government's action against Red Hot Dutch. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage decided before Easter that decoders that enable customers to receive that obscene channel could be banned by the British Government within the terms of European agreements on transfrontier television.


I ask him to describe how the Government intend to keep ahead of a commercial company that is determined to make money from that pornographic service and plans to exploit other technological means of ensuring that its signal gets through.
My hon. Friend the Minister may be interested to know that my inquiries suggest that such material is now broadcast on television in Denmark, from where the signal now emanates. But the Danes—rather lamely—will not take action against Red Hot Dutch themselves.
What further action do the Government plan against continental television, especially against the service being broadcast to existing subscribers? What if the programmes are recorded on video from an individual's television set and the videos begin to circulate, as I believe they will? Will action be taken against those videos?
Can my hon. Friend tell us anything more about newspaper reports that the German Government have requested that action be taken against the "adult channel" that may be broadcast to Germany from the United Kingdom? I am pleased that some other European countries are beginning to see such matters in the way that many in this country do.
Computers are increasingly posing problems for the police. A particular difficulty is one that Scotland Yard explained at the time of its exhibition in the House—when a picture is generated by computer which superimposes a child's head on an adult body. Apparently, the courts have decided that such an image cannot be deemed to be that of a child. I consider that decision monstrous, and I believe that the Government must close the loophole as soon as possible.
However, other aspects of computer technology are even more worrying. I think in particular of developments in what is called "virtual reality", in which three-dimensional images can be created by computer and projected through a special headset. This amazing technology then allows the individual to interact with the image so that it is, as the name suggests, virtual reality. Such technology can clearly have benefit—for example, in training for complicated technical tasks—but what pornographer would pass up the opportunity to make money from marketing interactive sexual acts, including those against children? I wonder what will be the Government's response to that horrific development.
I cannot claim that the Government have been wholly inactive in response to these various developments. The picture that comes to my mind to describe their response is that of the small boy in the story from Holland who seeks to keep the water from coming through the dyke by putting his finger in the hole. I see a lot of energy being expended by Ministers seeking to find small holes which they can try and plug with limited action; but my hon. Friend is rapidly running out of fingers.
I do not believe that that is good enough. Of course, any action that restricts pornography is welcome, but short-term fixes are not sufficient. The real problems lie with the structure of the dyke itself—in this case, the Obscene Publications Act 1959. I urge the Government to face up to that fact and to undertake the review that is so desperately necessary. Responding to each new technological development individually is wholly inadequate. Individual Acts of Parliament such as the Video

Recordings Act 1984 may produce an element of control of a new medium for a period; but the 1959 Act is the underpinning measure that must cope until such legislation is introduced, and must provide the overall framework. While that framework is weak and unsound, other actions will have limited effect.
It is clear to me from the letter that I received from the Prime Minister that his advice from the Home Office is badly flawed. The Prime Minister draws particular attention in his letter to the example of "Juliette", which I mentioned at the start of my speech. He describes it as "truly horrifying". The police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General said that a prosecution in this case could not be made because of the inadequate 1959 Act test of obscenity; yet the Home Office stubbornly refuses to review that test.
The question that my hon. Friend must answer tonight is this: does he disagree with the Attorney-General, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police who say that they cannot secure convictions in some of the worst cases because of the fundamental weakness of the Act? Does he not share the Prime Minister's desire—expressed last week in that letter to me—to see more effective action taken against the worst kind of pornography? If he understands those difficulties and shares those concerns, he will now announce the fundamental review of the law for which we have been pressing.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Michael Jack): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) on securing this Adjournment debate. I regret that it may not be possible in the time left for me to reply to every point that she raised, but I undertake to deal with any points that I leave unanswered in correspondence with her.
My hon. Friend asked me about the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The position of the Home Office remains as stated in the Prime Minister's letter, to which she referred. I have, however, done as much as possible to acquaint myself with some of the degrading, vile, filthy and disgusting material to which she rightly drew my attention in earlier debates.
I have visited the obscene publications squads in Manchester and at Scotland Yard and have spent many hours looking at the technology that my hon. Friend so graphically described. She did the House a considerable service by arranging for the Scotland Yard exhibition to be shown here so that right hon. and hon. Members could become acquainted with this type of material.
I shall start where I intend to finish—by talking about what we have been doing since my hon. Friend raised the subject with the Prime Minister at that meeting. I undertook to look at what could be done about this vile trade. An effective way of dealing with pornography is to hit the pornographer in the pocket. These people are in this business for profit. Effective enforcement of the law is a good way of dealing with the problem.
We are looking at ways of strengthening police powers of arrest for those who would seek to trade in all kinds of pornography, including child pornography.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend took up a considerable amount of the time allocated to the debate. If she wants me to reply to it, I have fewer than 10 minutes in which to do so. I hope that she will allow me to make some progress.
We are exploring ways in which to improve the powers of the police properly to investigate the methods and business affairs of large-scale pornographers. We are examining ways in which the effectiveness of certain search warrants can be improved. We are assessing also how the important powers that the police currently enjoy to seize obscene articles can be streamlined and speeded up.
Those measures are the result of talking to the same people as those to whom my hon. Friend talked—Scotland Yard and the obscene publications squad in Manchester. Having listened to those officers, I formed the judgment that by improving the effectiveness of our enforcement procedures we shall start to bear down on this trade.
As for other matters to which my hon. Friend referred, my constituency, too, has been blighted by the arrival of so-called hi-tech pornography. One of my constituents, Mr. Jeffries, has received a lot of publicity because of his so-called hole-in-the-wall pornography machine. I condemn him for causing so much discomfort and upset to my constituents. However, what he did brought home to me just how strongly good, ordinary folk feel about the issues to which my hon. Friend referred. It underlines the importance of the exhibition that my hon. Friend helped to organise in the House.
My hon. Friend asked how the law could be brought to bear on some of these so-called hi-tech, or 21st century, pornographers. For the record, I would point out that it still remains the case that it is an offence under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 to publish for gain, or to possess for publication, any obscene article. That offence is punishable by an unlimited fine, or three years' imprisonment, or both. That law applies to computer disks in the way that it applies to other articles. It applies equally to satellite television broadcasts and to other television broadcasts.
My hon. Friend might wonder whether the law has in fact been used. In 1992, the Metropolitan police seized 1,000 computer disks under the Obscene Publications Act 1959. In the same year. the Greater Manchester force seized more than 1,500 disks. In addition, in 1991, 218 persons in England and Wales were convicted of the serious offence of trading in pornography of all kinds. I acknowledge my hon. Friend's point about prosecutorial difficulties. The impression can sometimes be created that the law is unable to act, but it does act.
Expertise is also very important. The work of those involved in Greater Manchester who have a particular knowledge of computer technology is being made more widely available. My officials are considering how best their knowledge can be spread to other police forces which may wish to take action in this sphere. I shall certainly do all that I can to encourage that development.
One of the problems that I and my hon. Friend encountered involved the operation of so-called "bulletin boards" to transmit explicit material down the telephone system into computers. As I said, there are controls over computer disks in the 1959 Act and legal controls over the transmission of pornographic images between computers in cases where no disks change hands. Under section 43 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 it is a criminal offence to send over a public telecommunication any message or other matter which is grossly offensive or of an indecent,

obscene or menacing character. That is another example of the law working. That offence would catch an individual —for example, a computer buff—who transmitted a pornographic image over the telephone to a friend, arid it is currently subject to a maximum penalty of a level 3 fine, or £ 1,000. To take up another of my hon. Friend's points, the Government are committed to increasing the penalty for that offence, which also covers those who make nuisance phone calls and provide indecent or obscene "adult" telephone services. I wish to emphasise that point to my hon. Friend.
A moment ago I mentioned bulletin boards. They are also specifically caught by the Broadcasting Act 1990. Material in the form of a visual image comes under the definition of what is called a "programme service" and is caught by section 201 of the Broadcasting Act, so modern computerised pornography can be dealt with under the law in two ways.
My hon. Friend mentioned something which I certainly found very distasteful, the construction by means of computer of the image of a child. I found it profoundly revolting, and I share her concerns about the difficulties of the law in that regard. Thankfully, so far only one example is known, but I assure my hon. Friend that I shall watch the situation closely. I noted carefully what she said. I have seen it for myself, and I think I know how she feels about it. If necessary, we can consider ways in which the law can be strengthened to deal with such imagery.
My hon. Friend did not mention the question of computer games, which I have read about in the newspapers. She touched on the issue when she spoke of her concern about "virtual reality". The definition of a video work in the Video Recordings Act 1984 covers computer games which include moving images, but they are generally exempt from classification. However, that exemption does not apply to games that show human sexual activity, the mutilation or torture of, or gross violence towards, human beings or animals, or human genital organs. If such games are supplied or offered illegally, or possessed for the purpose of supply, without having been submitted to the British Board of Film Classification for classification, those responsible are guilty of an offence and are liable to a fine of £ 20,000.
The enforcement of the Video Recordings Act 1984, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is currently being strengthened by a Bill being taken through the other place with the Government's support by Lord Birkett. The measure will be introduced in this House by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Mr. Brandreth), and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton will wish to support it.
My hon. Friend also mentioned satellite pornography and asked about the attitude of other European countries to that development. Time does not permit me to go into detail, but, as my hon. Friend knows, that area of policy is within the remit of the Department of National Heritage, and I undertake to draw her remarks to the attention of the Secretary of State for National Heritage and to ensure that she receives a full and proper reply to her questions.
We have been considering carefully many of the matters about which my hon. Friend spoke, and I hope that we are aware of the way in which technology—I have already mentioned virtual reality—is expanding the opportunities for pornography. I emphasise that we shall monitor developments carefully. I have thought about whether the


law as it stands can deal with such matters, and I hope that I have proved that the law can act, and has indeed been used. Like my hon. Friend, I am in close touch with the Metropolitan police and with the Manchester obscene publications squad, and I am watching the situation carefully.
Sex education videos are subject both to the Video Recordings Act 1984 and to the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The board's classification does not give immunity

from prosecution for obscenity, but the context is important. The "deprave or corrupt" test and the "public good" defence are designed to be applied case by case. It is not true to say that certain types of image are always prohibited; sex education videos may lawfully show images that would not be permitted in other videos. I believe that the BBFC acts conscientiously and responsibly in dealing with those and other difficult matters, but I promise my hon. Friend that I shall keep a close eye on these many difficult issues.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Two o'clock.